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 no consensus. A majority wants to keep, and a minority wants to redirect or merge. Nobody, including the nominator, wants to delete. This means a trout for the nominator for misusing the deletion process, and no consensus to redirect or merge. Such proposals can continue to be discussed on the article talk page, where they belong. Sandstein 17:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Cincinnati Time Store

Cincinnati Time Store (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet again, undiscussed blanking and redirection (by the same editor).

We have a policy for article deletion: use it. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per the last time round the dancefloor. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Why are you AfD'ing the article? This AfD appears to be a manipulation of the system not made in good faith. It's generally understood that the nom is a !vote for Delete. -- Green C 15:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree that it is out of process, but deletion by redirection is any even bigger manipulation of the system. This is the most sensible venue to bring that kind of abuse to. Spinning Spark 18:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Yeah see what you mean ( [1] [2]). DBR's are like Presidential Executive Actions, largely dependent on no one watching who might disagree and roll it back. -- Green C 20:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store, a sourced section that covers the topic in sufficient detail. By comparison, the standalone article in question has been unfootnoted for a decade and no reliable, secondary sources cover the concept as distinct from Warren, its founder. Bold redirection is a preferred alternative to deletion, but the nom doesn't even advocate for deletion, so this should be (once again) speedily closed. There are no reasons given for keeping this article in its current condition, especially when there is an extant, sourced section to cover this concept in summary style. czar 21:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is a big difference between unreferenced and needing inline citations. The book Men Against the State is reliable, secondary, verifies the article and is independent of Warren, so Czar's claims are inaccurate at best. As an administrator, Czar should really know the difference between boldly redirecting and boldly redirecting again after being challenged. Spinning Spark 23:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply

no reliable, secondary sources cover the concept as distinct from Warren, its founder

By this I meant that the Cincinnati Time Store is always covered in context of Warren's life, not as an independently notable concept, hence why I said it should be covered within Warren's article. As for your other claims, is the patronizing tone really necessary? It's been a year between edits. If you'd like to dig out the footnotes from that source, go for it, but I could only source a fraction of the text when I tried. czar 00:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Weak merge into Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store. The source provided does make the subject notable enough, but it seems like the topic could be covered better as a section in an overall article. A single source makes a separate article just for that topic difficult to justify. That being said, the section as it is now contains further sources and could theoretically be used to expand the article if we opt to go that route. I don't support deletion at all, this should really just be a debate over whether to merge or not since it clearly passes WP:GNG. -- Nathan2055 ^{talk - contribs} 23:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Either Keep or Merge to Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store. This kind of thing was an interesting socio-economic experiment and may deserve an article apart from its creator. Do not delete totally. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

• Close, no action. This is not a deletion discussion. It is not Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. It should be closed to allow the more considered merge discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply

We already discussed how the the nominator was wrong to twice bring this article to AfD with no policy-based rationale for either keeping or deleting (and note that I said as much above). But while we're here, I don't see how it's reasonable to expect discussion hidden away on an unfrequented talk page to be "more considered" than that which we already have above. Opening yet another discussion is just needless bureaucracy. What no one has answered in these reams of text: Where is the sourcing that affirms that this article topic is independently notable from Josiah Warren? If it lacks significant coverage in sources, it should be merged to that parent article and covered in summary style proportion. That can be decided here without dragging this on any longer. czar 03:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

OK, reconsidered ...

• Redirect to Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store. No sources to justify a separate article. The target already has coverage, allow further merging of material subject to consensus, with discussion at Talk:Josiah_Warren#Cincinnati_Time_Store.

WP:TROUT Andy Dingley for the non-nomination for deletion both this AfD and the previous. AfDs should not be opened in "keep" rationales. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Snow Keep per last nomination. Meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

If you actually read the last nomination, it was speedily closed for being out of process, not even close to "snow keep". czar 02:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

If you actually read what I wrote above, you would note that I was talking about this nomination, not the other. You misinterpreted unambiguous communication. There isn't a snowball's chance that this is going down as a delete or a merge. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment I added a lead section that summarizes the venture and 6 new sources on Google Books to demonstrate notability and verifiability. There are more sources in Josiah Warren#Cincinnati Time Store that could be imported. I imagine the rest of the article can be sourced to the two non-inline sources, but I can not verify. -- Green C 15:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment I added 4 6 7 sources (and counting) and more text related to notability of the store.

While we don't 'count votes', The Doors had an answer. Five+ to One says it all 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 20:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #1 & #2 as the nomination does not give a reason to delete. The topic is quite interesting and notable so if someone keeps blanking the page, contrary to WP:BLANK, they should be blocked for WP:DISRUPTION. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment. In case my earlier keep is ignored for not giving a valid rationale, let me give one now. I find the sources adequate, they discuss the subject in depth. The argument that they don't count because they all mention Warren has no basis in policy. Of course they all name Warren. He was the founder of the store. Any source that didn't mention that fact in all likelihood would be deficient for our purposes. Spinning Spark 22:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• keep/weak no merge The topic is clearly notable (plenty of sources), the question is one of organization. That doesn't belong at AfD. That said, sources like this [3] are enough to get me to believe that we should have an article on this topic--when Bloomberg is writing an article assuming you know what a topic is, that topic is likely notable enough for an article. It's in the title for goodness sake. But yeah, I don't think merge/no merge matters all that much as long as we have the material here. Hobit ( talk) 13:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Kemple, Steve (March 19, 2010). "The Cincinnati Time Store As An Historical Precedent For Societal Change". Cincinnati Ohio: Presented at CS13. pp. 1–3. Retrieved November 29, 2018. should settle this issue. This makes 7 sources I've added. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

That ref is an unpublished conference paper. It's not even a reliable source... czar 02:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per above, notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Note to closer: Note the depth by the article actually covers the store itself, apart from its creator. Note that none of the comments above mention how the refbombed sources like [4], only allude to the Cincinnati Time Store in passing mention or as an invention of Josiah Warren. The sources only discuss the Time Store in context of Warren. These sources, which only mention the Time Store project in passing, do not make the case that the topic is independently notable from its creator. They add nothing above what could be adequately covered in Warren's article without needing a summary style split. czar 02:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Review of recently added sources:

These sources are used to give the appearance of significant coverage, which clearly doesn't pass scrutiny after the most cursory of readings.

And if you can look past all of the hand-wringing about process to read the actual source material, everything mentioned here fits easily within the scope of Josiah Warren and time-based currency without warranting a summary style split. The literature never writes about the individual/distinct importance of CTS but about Warren (the individual) and his role in the development of the time store/bank concept. czar 17:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Strongly disagree with your characterization of the sources, or that editors are "ref bombing". -- Green C 19:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply

And strong evidence of both on the article's talk page. czar 04:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Evidence of something. -- Green C 08:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I really can't go along with your idea that the context in which the sources discuss the topic rules them out for establishing notability. There is no basis for that in either policy or our editorial practice. All that matters is that there is sufficient information to fill a page, and it is verifiable to reliable sources. If Warren was only notable for the time store, then there would be a case for a single merged article, but that is not the case. And even then, the merge target would be this article, not Warren's, per WP:1E. Spinning Spark 10:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

re: "no basis", that the context of a topic's coverage determines the manner by which we treat the topic is a basic tenet of NPOV (policy). The issue isn't that the sources naturally introduce Warren alongside CTS but that the sources being used as evidence of CTS's independent notability are primarily about Warren: his ideas, his tribulations, and how the CTS is a brief expression of his ideas (and would be one of several). Proportional coverage, mirroring how CTS is covered in reliable sources, would warrant covering the CTS as a summary style section within the parent. You only need to read the current CTS article copy to see how it's a stretch to write a dedicated article based on this sourcing—it's a series of passing mentions strung together to give the appearance of content ("fill a page"), and the only meaty sources that actually give detail on the CTS are chapters/books about Warren. All signs point to CTS warranting proportionate coverage within Warren's article. I'd have no argument with splitting that section out summary style if it became disproportionately large for Warren's article, but having actually read through the content, I really don't see how that would be the case any time soon. Not sure why 1E would have any relevancy: Warren is far, far more notable than the CTS, hence why so much is written about his life and why the CTS is only covered in context of it. czar 16:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

The policy you cite ( WP:PROPORTION) has nothing whatsoever to do with the case you are trying to make. It does not support it at all. PROPORTION would govern how much material on CTS can go into the Warren article. It has nothing to say on how much material on CTS can go into the CTS article. Spinning Spark 16:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

It's a core principle. WP:PROPORTION is directly tied to Wikipedia:Summary style. It's a question of how to determine when a CTS article is needed as independently notable from its parent article/coverage, not on "how much material on CTS can go into the CTS article". czar 17:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Asserting that something is supported by policy does not make it so. I note that even after being challenged, you are still not citing the text of policy that supports your claim. WP:PROPORTION does not link to or even mention summary style. Even if it did, WP:SUMMARY does not support your rationale either. Spinning Spark 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't know what more you want. There is no "policy"-level page that governs when to merge—it's supposed to be common sense. This comes directly from the NPOV policy page:

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

"Should strive" is aspirational, not a set of specific criteria. Look at the text of CTS right now and the majority (that isn't sourced to an unreliable source) is a hodge podge of minor assertions, owing to their origin: one-sentence asides (passing mentions) in sources. That's "undue weight to minor aspects of its subject". So in the spirit of due weight, reduce the those minor asides to those that provide more light than heat. Apart from the asides, you're left with Wunderlich and Martin, and if you're treating the subject (CTS) proportional to its treatment in the corpus of that reliable, published material (i.e., a book and chapter, respectively, about Josiah Warren), then we don't cover CTS in any more depth than that would belong in the CTS section of Warren's article. Is that too theoretical—does it need to be demonstrated? I look at the current CTS article to see what I could merge back to improve the Warren article and apart from the summary sourced in the lede, what is there? If the Cincinnati Time Store section of the Warren article was properly expanded to FA-prose, there would be nothing that the CTS article could contain that would warrant the split/fork. czar 22:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

There are 17 refs in the article. You listed 8 above you had trouble with, of which most of them are actually fine - reliable sources containing facts used to write the article with. You've set the bar for the refs way too high beyond typical norms.

• You are doing word counts ("short paragraph", passing mention"), instead of looking at what fact was cited and how it was used to improve the article. Significant coverage can be 1 word or 1 sentence if it's significant. Your opinion it's not significant is just that, your opinion. If it is being used to write the article with, it probably has some significance.
• Any source including Time Stores will include Warren the founder, logically and evidently. Sources don't need to be entirely about the topic.
• Paywalls are not an "obfuscation", it confuses the medium with the source, sources only need be verifiable.
• Calling a source "idle speculation" is your opinion. Wikipedia allows for multiple POVs even if you disagree with them.
• Shiller is a Noble laureate, when he mentions Time Stores in a major publication it shows continued long-term cultural relevance of this topic the very essence of notability. Your attempts to water this down are unconvincing and shows how high you have set the bar.
• You ignore other sources in the article that clearly show notability. The above list is a fun-house mirror representation of the sources.

-- Green C 18:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, which sources did I not address above? I grouped citations together (with "+") to avoid monotony. If you'd like me to address the sources you added after my comment, I can do so, but I think it's fairly straightforward that those too are passing mentions. If we're at the point of stringing passing mentions together to write an article, then we have to ask whether the topic itself is covered in depth. We're not talking about "significant coverage" because we already established that the topic is covered within chapters/books about Warren and no one has advocated for deletion.
• The "obfuscation" wasn't the paywall, but making a vague wave to a citation behind a paywall to look like it contains more content about the subject than it actually does.

• Perhaps this Cincinnati Time Store was the anticipator of all future LETS systems.
  —  "Editor's Introduction". The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 65 (5): 997–1000. 2006. ISSN  0002-9246. JSTOR  27739607 – via JSTOR.

  How is this not speculatory? This is one of two sentences about the CTS as a brief aside in the citation. This is indicative of the types of sources dumped into this article.
• Shiller made reference to the CTS as a quip/aside and a promotional press whipped it into a headline. Those articles make no connection between CTS's passing mention and Shiller's ultimate point: that an economist famed for predicting previous, actual bubbles is predicting Bitcoin to be a bubble (neither of which have to do with CTS) and en route to this point, that Bitcoin would be a failed experiment just like time banks/stores—saying nothing to the extended import of the CTS itself apart from being one of those time banks/stores. If CTS was of such importance to the article's message, why is it only alluded in the most cursory of fashions? Because it is incidental to the point of the headline. The way in which the Shiller ref is being used in the article is nonsensical, hence why I brought it to the talk page.

czar 19:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment As of November 27, the article had two sources and non inline. It since has been greatly expanded. -- Green C 14:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

See above re: textbook reference bombardment from passing mentions. czar 16:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

You don't need to repeat arguments others have already disagreed with, it just creates walls of text. This Comment is factual information to clarify the complicated history of this article, it is not making an argument either way. -- Green C 18:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

For what it's worth, I agree with User:GreenC and disagree with the Tsar, er, I mean User:Czar. The article is well-sourced. The creator of the store and the store as created as linked, but distinguishable and separate. Both deserve their own articles. That all these sources established, once again, no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• The "fact" of the article's expansion had already been made (and addressed), if you heed your own advice.

( edit conflict) And the reference to " WP:Before" is a totally unthinking comment: We've established many times over that the nominator was out of process. If it was intended as careless invective against me, I'll raise that I own print copies of the major sources "discovered" over the course of this discussion (and others that haven't yet been) as part of a project on Josiah Warren that I have been planning since 2016. My position (for redirection/merger) should come across as reasonable to anyone who has read through this material and isn't here on an ideological basis, but the shameful level of invective directed towards my intentions throughout this discussion has completely soured me to that project. If it matters so much to you, I hope you can at least appreciate your spoils. czar 19:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

That you want to add to Josiah Warren is commendable. I would hope you do not let this spoil you effort. But your passion for that subject has apparently colored your viewpoint on the import of his creation.

I have had similar experiences. I had a grand plan to create/improve all of the Michigan and Great Lakes lighthouse articles, and I got shot down on a wonkian enforcement of template policy. I cut that effort off, so I empathize with your frustration.

We are all volunteers, after all.

i hope you reconsider taking home your marbles and going home. But in the end it's your call.

Your efforts will be missed. 19:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

So now it becomes clear what Czar's real problem is. Czar sees this page as interfering with his expansion of the Warren article. So why not write the Warren article and then reassess the need for this page? (but please, not with another AfD) Spinning Spark 10:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

"Czar's real problem" No need to talk like this. This subarticle has no direct impact on the content of Josiah Warren but just kicks the inevitable merge discussion down the road when it didn't warrant this drawn out discussion in the first place. "Why not write the Warren article?"—because AfD is not supposed to be cleanup, though based on the CTS article's modifications, it will be. czar 15:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Sometimes we all need to take a deep breath and reread WP:Dead horse and apply it.

This is a Kenny Rogers The Gambler moment. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. I have no great personal investment in this, and getting this decided in the right way is simply out of my hands. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. A good article on a subject that is clearly of historical interest, even if the body of sources is wider than it is deep. Time to leave the poor equid alone, Czar. –  Joe ( talk) 12:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Considering the non-sourced or under-sourced junk proposed or added to Wikipedia, and with respect to "gatekeepers", I see this as part of a sourced fringe theory and an acceptable addition to the Libertarian socialism and Individualist anarchism series. While neither of the last two fall under any ideologies I espouse, they usually gain a following, because many "just want to be left alone". Tearing down Mount Rushmore would have been considered an insane fringe theory. With a move to remove all "offending evidence" (makes one feel uncomfortable) of a certain time in US history, including Civil War monuments, the idea seems no longer so insane. There is historical value to the article. Job Harriman had "fringe theories" when founding the Utopian society Llano Cooperative Colony and Stables, Louisiana. The community lasted twenty years, survived most of The Great Depression (some sources state lasted until WWII), the founder, but finally succumbed to the Recession of 1937–38 and a 1994 film “American Utopia was even made. Should these things be excluded from history or relegated to just the principle subject? Multiple sources, that may even be considered minor mentions, can establish notability and I feel this is established for a standalone article. I also think there may be more sources out there. Otr500 ( talk) 16:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC) reply

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.