Deletion of Grissom/Sara Romance

Comment: far too minor and speculative, verges on |original research and violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:FICT)

Comment: CSI has been for a long time the number one show on American television and GSR is the first and only canonical relationship portrayed in it. It has caused much debate among fans and attention from the media. Moreover, having read the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page, it does not break any of the guidelines or rules that wikipedia use. All CSI communities and discussions talk about GSR, either for or against, and if they don't it's because the topic has been banned because it's so controversial. It is definitely relevant to the subject matter.  #When_you_wonder_what_to_do|Here it says that if you expect something to be in a real encyclopedia then it should be in wiki. If I were reading an encyclopedia that had a CSI entry but nothing about GSR, I'd think it would definitely be lacking. It is not a fanfic at all. It's canon CSI and there's no disputing that. It does, however, need a clean-up. The list needs to be edited so that someone who wasn't already in on what the quotes mean would understand it. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Fanfic ''can'' belong on Wikipedia ''if'' it passess otability -- multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources.  This, however, is not fanfic.  It's canon CSI (as noted above), but it still does not pass  (the only sources I could find were fanfic websites and/or blogs
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: per . (And Cman, stop wasting our time. If you have nothing to add, go elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: Wiki is not #IINFO|a collection of subplots of a TV series
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)