Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Conspiracy journalism[edit]

The article was deleted after a discussion in which the only keep argument came from the originator and main contributor, User:Jettparmer. Jettparmer then asked for a deletion review, in which the decision was to endorse the deletion, though an offer was made to move the material to a subpage. Jettparmer elected for incubation, though the article has not attracted attention from any other editor. As Jettparmer has moved the material to his userpage - User:Jettparmer#Conspiracy_Journalism - it is no longer appropriate to keep it in incubation. SilkTork *^YES! 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am inclined to agree with the nominator; we don't need two copies of this floating around. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would be remiss if I didn't place a vote for keep. I believe the article should be moved back to the main space of Wikipedia. There is too little traffic on the incubator and frankly, the article was moved out after some very subjective discussions. The term is well qualified and in use in both media and academia. Thus not only would I vote to retain the article in the incubator, I would move it to the main area. Jettparmer (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been in incubation for the best part of this year. Incubator is not a junk yard. The article is problematic as non-notable neologism, and is ripe for WP:OR. As it's been voluntarily userfied, there's no point in keeping two copies: which one to work on??? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still believe the entry is valid and does not violate WP:OR. In the most extreme sense, all WP articles are OR as they require the compilation of information, in non-copyrighted manner from a variety of sources. So I am open to suggestions and ideas. It seems a shame to give this term such short shrift. Jettparmer (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the topic in article space, you need to make such a request at WP:DRV to establish that significant new information has come to light to overcome the reasons listed in the AfD deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Conspiracy journalism per Jettparmer (talk · contribs)'s request. Since the article has been userfied, nontrivial changes have been made to the page. I do not know whether or not the changes have rectified the concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism. Therefore, I request a move to Conspiracy journalism and then a list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination).
If the closing admin deems that {{db-repost}} would apply to the article if it were returned to the mainspace, my position is to delete this old draft. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jettparmer, please remove the content at User:Jettparmer#Conspiracy Journalism. It violates WP:UP#COPIES and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Cunard (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Removed per WP:Policies and WP:User pages Jettparmer (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a shell game: From article space -->AfD--> DRV-->Article Incubator-->MfD-->User space and now urging to move back to article space. At what point do we effectuate the 20 March 2010 AfD close of delete? No significant new information has come to light since 20 March 2010 and the information in the deleted article has not proven useful to write a new article at Article Incubator. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article was modified continually since original AfD nomination. Concur with talk opinion on returning to article space. Hardly a shell game. Jettparmer (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.