Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigun yaoi (second nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. SushiGeek 03:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Trigun yaoi
This is by far some of the most blatant speculative fan(fiction)cruft I've ever seen. Not only is the entire article Original research, its also entirely speculative. As nominator (yeah thats my IP and yes it did take me 4 trys to get the deltion right, please dont make fun of me, its been a long week) I vote Strong Delete -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note the result of the last VfD was merge, but it seems that has not happened, I looked and didn't see a good way to merge, maybe someone else can take it. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 00:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge at the very least. & have Trigun decide what to keep Bridesmill 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak merge to Trigun. Article is crufty, but could use some work. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 00:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Royboy. -- Con  Dem Talk 01:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???   ???   ??? 03:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apparently the editors at the Trigun article don't want this to be merged.  It's original research and probably unverifiable. Brian G. Crawford 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If not possible to merge to Trigun, merge to yaoi, as exemplar case. -- Simon Cursitor 07:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research unless verifiable. --Ter e nce Ong 07:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. &mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show!  (talk) 2006-04-07 11:53Z 
 * Merge per Royboy. Bucketsofg 12:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Royboy. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't merge; burn, stomp the ashes, strew to the winds. Pure personal fantasy. John Reid 20:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even I could write something better than that. Tell the author to move this to his userpage. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 20:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. -- P199 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with impunity per John Reid. Starry  Eyes  23:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete quickly, reasons self-evident Danny Lilithborne 07:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 01:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * SMerge Just a passing mention is all that is needed. Kotepho 13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Reid: Fanon. Nifboy 02:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per "original research unless verifiable". If verification inserted, then merge. MikeBriggs 16:45, 11 April 2006 (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.