Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totnes Times


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Totnes. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Totnes Times

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is completely unreferenced and only includes one Paragraph, one External Link, and one table which includes 5 sections. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Companies. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG and needs more sources. LemonberryPie (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I suppose that with a lot of work this could be expanded into a useful article, but I doubt it. There just isn't enough there. (I should declare a sort of interest: my parents lived in Totnes, and it's a town I know well. When I had property in the UK it was in Totnes.)  Athel cb (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Totnes under a new Media section as an alternative to deletion. Surely deserves a mention in that article having been a mainstay of local news for over 150 years? The newspaper verifiably exists, perhaps not enough to satisfy GNG to have a separate page though. Bit of info. here: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/totnes-weekly-times Rupples (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Totnes as per Rupples. Suonii180 (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge/redirect as above or keep. I'm pretty sure we could cobble together enough to meet GNG, through mentions in the Google Scholar results. But a m/r might actually serve the encyclopedia better until someone takes the effort to actually expand the article itself. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per above. I would lean towards keeping because it seems more helpful to the reader, and more likely to attract knowledgeable editors, as a separate article. Newspapers have a lot of encyclopedic value, and from a scan of Google Books and Scholar this one appears very likely to meet the proposed criterion of WP:NME in being frequently cited by other reliable sources. (I would be surprised if the GNG can't be met as well, although finding those sources might require someone with more specialized expertise; my initial poking around didn't turn up much.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2023 (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.