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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube roleplaying[edit]

Youtube roleplaying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

In my opinion, this is not a topic which is of encyclopedia importance. Of course, I could be wrong; if reliable sources discussing this can be found and the article can be expanded with verifiable information, that would be fine. I didn't find such sources with my own search, though. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You could be wrong, but you're not. This is simply a combination of an proper name used as an adjective and a gerund. It's not a topic, it's not well-written, there are no references given, and there are none that can be found. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete content is essentially a three-sentence restatement of "Youtube roleplaying is roleplaying on Youtube" and I don't think the topic is either notable nor verifiable enough to expand/improve. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Starblind. Its funny (and sad) because its true. JBsupreme (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to roleplaying. Shouldn't be lost. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhhh, what? Why shouldn't it be lost? Did you notice the complete lack of sources? Hell yes this should be lost! JBsupreme (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I declined speedy deletion because the article didn't appear to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but requested proposed deletion instead. The article is actually worse now than it was when it was nominated for speedy deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2009 (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.