Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigun yaoi

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 merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trigun yaoi

Delete - no reason for needing a page about this for one specific anime. Does every anime then get a similar article for this? I hope not. Wickethewok 07:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've repeatedly attempted to include information about the yaoi fandom in the original Trigun article. It is a very important part of what this anime and manga is, and I believed that an original article wouldn't offend people's homophobic little sensibilities. Apparently I was wrong. I also plan to expand this article, so please do not delete it simply because one person does not like Trigun yaoi. Plenty of other people do.

millyfan 07:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)millyfan

• • Comment - Umm, no homophobia here. It will not be deleted unless other people agree with me on the fact that every anime does not need its own article about a specific type of erotic fan art and fanfic. That is my reason for nomination, not "homophobic little sensibilities".Wickethewok 07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Talk about a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy. Just because there is an article for Trigun yaoi, does not mean that we'll see a flood of articles for anime erotic art. If mine was somehow just an "omg yaoi is hawt" stub or something, I could see deleting it, but this wasn't like that.millyfan 07:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Herrick 07:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I do not see yaoi being canon in Trigun, I don't see why it isn't possible to have a page about it. If it is done in a manner which is unbiased I see no problem in keeping the page up instead of deleting it. Those who find a problem with Trigun yaoi having it's own page, should maybe consider it being allowed to be included in the section for Trigun (though Millyfan has told me that it has been edited out before).

Also, why is this a problem? Star Trek TOS even has it's own page for a certain slash couple (which some consider canon, though that has never been confirmed by Paramount OR Gene Roddenberry).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk/Spock

If this is allowed, why is this page about Trigun Yaoi such a big deal?

--K R 07:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no problem with it being included in the Trigun article, I just don't feel it warrants its own article. Wickethewok 08:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Wickethewok. Trigun is not long enough to require a separate fanfic fork. If fanfic is an important part of the anime's appeal, then it should be included in the main article and you need to work it out with the other editors. I think we generally discourage POV forks unless the main article is too unwieldy to accomodate it. Thatcher131 08:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Wicketwok. JoshuaZ 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I would gladly merge if the editors for the existing Trigun article didn't delete it every single time I posted anything suggesting anything less than a heteronormative interpretation. They even deleted a reference included to Vash's possibly being bisexual, and I dislike being tagged as a vandal and deleted simply because my opinion is different than that of the other article maintainers. millyfan 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

First, keep track of the link to this discussion, it will be kept in the archives after the AfD is closed and you can use it for evidence of community consensus in your favor. If the other editors persist in reverting you, you can post a notice at WP:ANI and try to recruit some admins to mediate for you. Thatcher131 06:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Wicketwok. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 18 March 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.