Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball Z (Fusion Technique)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z (Fusion Technique)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

PROD accidentally removed by author, this is just simply a fantasy martial technique in a popular anime and manga that doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the very example of fancruft, a selection of content is of importance only to a very small group of enthusiastic fans. What a general reader needs to know about the technique is already covered in the character descriptions and chapter and episode summaries. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete over-enthusiastic fan creator, failing to notice that Wikipedia isn't a fan site and have some standards of relevance for created article. This article doesn't meet neither General Nobility Guideline requirements nor any Specific Nobility Guidelines ones. --KrebMarkt 15:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The technique is actually a pretty important part of the fiction of the series, but that doesn't grant any notability if there aren't reliable source that discuss it - which there are not. I have to believe that there's a Dragonball wiki somewhere that might be better suited for this sort of thing. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There isn't enough reliable third-party information to justify a separate article. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 05:04, 9 April 2010 (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.