Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Occupied Times of London (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus against deletion is clear. The merge is No consensus and may be proposed again on the article talk page(s) as soon as anyone cares to. Monty 845  17:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Occupied Times of London
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of the article is not notable. I've searched for suitable references but apart from those already listed, there's nothing. Besides, they date from over three years ago with nothing more recent. It's not clear if it is still a printed newspaper or is online only and updates are somewhat irregular. The latest edition is from April, the one prior to that in October 2014, the one prior to that March 2014. On this basis, I propose deletion. Horsemask (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include:, , , , . North America1000 02:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

– Of note is that the most recent edition of The Occupied Times of London was published in April 2015. North America1000 02:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, the sources you've provided kind of prove my point. At the end of 2011/beginning of 2012, everything Occupy London did got some sort of press attention. Doesn't make it notable and deserving of its own article, especially when there has been no sustained or even recent coverage. Ultimately, it's just an irregularly published student ezine that got a name-check in someone's PhD thesis once. Horsemask (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For additional rationale regarding this topic's notability, see also WP:NTEMP, Notability is not temporary. Also of note is that the book source I provided above is not "someone's PhD thesis". North America1000 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Note: I am also okay with a merge to Occupy LSX. North America1000 17:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into Occupy LSX I can't see how the paper is notable in and of itself, the publication of the first one was reported on, but that seems to be about it. Paulbrock (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merging into Occupy LSX makes sense given the very limited notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Keep, oppose merge per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by. The book and newspaper articles clearly establish that the subject is notable. Notability is applicable here. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Occupied Times of London to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC) *Keep. Seems to have numerous credible sources specifically written about it. AusLondonder (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Nom has been blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet, series of politically-motivated AFDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I came back for a 2nd look. This small paper got a small flurry of attention, really pretty small, when the Occupy movement was all over the news.  It has gotten very little since, and even what did get later tends to be shortly thereafter and referring back to that moment (see for example: Open Democracy, October 2012 "with expert activists and popular education (see for example the “Occupied Times of London[18]”) or with..."  )  Therefore, I continue to think that it is most appropriate to have this information form a section within the main article on the topic. Merge into Occupy LSX. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into Occupy LSX for the reasons explained above.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 18:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, oppose merge, subject is notable and notability is not temporary.--Darrelljon (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG based on the 4 references presently in the article. The book cited by North America above increases this notability - Visual Media and Culture of ‘Occupy’ by Pamela Odih, published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014, chapter three: Occupied Times: Print Media and the Revolutionary Press, pages 98 - 132 - discussion of "print-capitalism", the development of "multiplatform digital media" and the "phenemenolgy of The Occupied Times of London as print media."Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.