Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamachi


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yamachi
Delete, the fandom around this is hardly significant for it's own article, let alone to define a term found in it. The information pretty much seems useless, so I don't think a merge with other fanfiction type articles would be appropriate either. Ned Scott 05:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. fancruft, pure and simple.--み使い Mitsukai 06:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft. J I P  | Talk 11:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Fancruft should be (at best) a secondary factor for deletion. The appear to be minor characters, so they should probably be merged into the main Digimon article per Deletion policy/Minor characters.  --Cymsdale 12:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but this is likely non-canonical, which tends to be a consideration. Note one of the terms used: seme, a term from yaoi fanfiction, which is almost always non-canon.  This is likely nothing more than some rabid fangirl trying to get attention for her favorite "pairing".  I have no problem with the individual characters having their own slots here, but that's a far cry from this.--み使い Mitsukai 15:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was non-canonical, that would convince me. I don't know enough about the source material to know. --Cymsdale 15:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * they are "not minor character", though. They're two of the main characters in Digimon Adventure, and play a sizeable role in Digimon Adventure 02. Circeus 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm removing my vote for merge. I don't know enough about the topic to judge. --Cymsdale 23:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, definite fancruft. Circeus 19:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate, unimportant fancruft. -- Krash (Talk) 22:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are so very many Foo-Bar pairing neologisms and they are so transient that it is far beyond WP's scope to cover them all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it goes anywhere, it'd be under "fan interpretation" in the appropriate series article. Circeus 00:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And promptly be deleted from that series article as speculation/fanfic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think NPOV discussion of the fandom (i.e. the whole pairing debates in this case)would be inappropriate. Circeus 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with that either, if covered in a general sense. But under a seperate article for one pairing alone?  That's opening the door to all kinds of chaos.--み使い Mitsukai 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely. That's the whole reason I voted delete too ;-) Circeus 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think NPOV discussion of the fandom (i.e. the whole pairing debates in this case)would be inappropriate. Agreed, but some case would have to be made that this is a common or significant pairing in the fandom; after all, every character ever has been paired up with another character in the same (or another) fandom at least a dozen times. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. BS and Rubbish. - plau


 * 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.