Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vergon 6

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 redirect; I see nothing worth merging, but anyone who knows better is free to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vergon 6

Delete; this article is only about a very-minor significance planet in Futurama, it got blown up in 10 minutes on the fourth episode only to be forgotten the rest of the show. There's no reason for this page to exist on Wikipedia, only a mention in the Futurama article(s) is necessary. Mike 05:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ruby 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into List of planets in Futurama. Deserves redirect, but not an article. youngamerican (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into whichever season's article is relevant and/or [[List of planets in Futurama and delete. --Aaron 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge weak no to redirect though I've seen redirects for less. MLA 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Under the GFDL, a merge requires a redirect to follow up on attribution. Its not a big deal, I voted 'merge & delete' several times before I was made aware. Plus, someone might plausibly wikisearch or google Vergon 6 at some point, and in doing so should be led to the above list. youngamerican (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The GFDL requires no such thing. The relevant sections are 4I and 5. Redirecting from the merged page's title is merely the least onerous way to satisfy what it does require, namely the preservation of the history somewhere. That said, I see no compelling reason not to redirect from here. —Cryptic (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge; but second half of article seems to decay into non-notable original research-nonsense someone made in school one day (the Vergon 6 effect, buh). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge; As far as the second half of the article ("Vorgon 6 moment"): Sorry, I came up with a far better term many, many years ago that means the same thing. That word is "fax". I won't ruin The Usual Suspects for anyone, but if you have ever seen that movie and remember the ending, you will know exactly why the word "fax" is just as effective for meaning, "explaining something after it is already understood." Notice, however, that I'm not mucking with the entry for fax. FunnyYetTasty 22:33, 3 February 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.