Deletion of Cincinnati Time Store (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-21/yale-s-shiller-warns-crypto-may-be-another-cincinnati-time-store, 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 Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style split
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB)

Comment: 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources|reliable, secondary sources cover the concept as distinct from Warren, its founder. -R|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 Wikipedia:Summary style|summary style
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:SK1)

Comment: 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 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  #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 , they should be blocked for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SKCRIT||WP:BLANK||WP:DISRUPTION)