Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor technology in Sonic the Hedgehog


 * 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 was   delete. There are insufficient sources to prove notability. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor technology in Sonic the Hedgehog

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N and is simply an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is also seriously incomplete, and even if it were, it still would not pass the general notability guideline Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm hesitant to vote delete on this, as I can see potential for such an article to have verification. How? By out-of-worlders commenting and comparing between the Sonic world and our world. If someone would like to check on that, I would personally appreciate it. --Izno (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No future for this. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information etc. tgies (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What else needs to be said. Fair field fencer  F F F  07:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What else? Your reason. This is a discussion. Punkmorten (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is not completed then it's up to someone to fix that, and also more refs need to be added to the article. Fair field fencer  F F F  10:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Such an article can never cover the topic in a way appropriate for Wikipedia, such as Izno. I suggest a section in a "setting" or "universe" article, if sources exist, which I doubt. Nothing to be merged. User:Krator (t c) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable. Notability can only be shown by using reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). There are no such sources that treat the minor technology of Sonic the Hedgehog this way. Minor might just be a synonym for non notable. Article also fails the specific notability guideline (based on the general notability guideline) in WP:VGSCOPE that generally prohibits lists of items. No one has any references that show why we should make an exception for this list of non-notable items. Randomran (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete At the risk of parroting what's already been said, this will never pass WP:N (or WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:VGSCOPE etc, take your pick). Izno's proposal sounds rather essay-ish, although again (lack of) viability comes down to the (non-)existance of sources. Bridies (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not meant to be essay-ish. The way we establish real world N is by using RS to back up claims made in the real world, and such articles as this &mdash; "technology" &mdash; could possibly be found to have sources in the real world comparing the technology of the real and fantasy worlds. Which is also why it was a comment, rather than a keep. :) --Izno (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I'm not sure anyone has gone hunting for sources to establish real world notability, I'll pile it on. Unfortunate; I think articles such as this in particular might be usable... Is there any information in it worth pulling to the main series article, Sonic people? --Izno (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as discriminate and notable article verifiable through reliable sources that passes all fiction related guidelines, which totally lack consensus and so it's hard for anything to "fail" them. Consisent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia of video games, fictional technology, etc.  Even in a worst case scenario we would redirect without deleting as such locations exist, but I see no benefit in an outright deletion here.  Also keep per Potential, not just current state and Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.  Plenty of editor efforts to improve and reader interest, i.e. a legitimate search term.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Zero assertion of notability through reliable real world sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is notable as confirmed by reliable real world sources and therefore there is no reason to delete. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you prove it?  Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just look at any published video game magazine or game guide the covers or references this subject. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, this is mostly from the comics, other than the "prison egg", which in itself isn't notable for an article. And as far as I know, there's nothing with notable material about a comic series, at least not these individual devices.  WP:PLOT violations all around.  Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which appears to lack consensus. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is only applicable in an AfD once the policy itself is changed, and no earlier. --Izno (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can always Ignore all rules as removing this article would diminish Wikipedia. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we ignored all rules in every AfD you participate in, we wouldn't get anywhere. ;) --Izno (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in those where I argue to delete, but in those where I argue to keep we would actually expand our comprehensive compendium of general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs rather than do what is essentially electronic book burning. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor fictional things in fictional universe is...well...this has no hope of becoming an article. There's nobody writing reliable third-party sources on these wildly disparate items individually, and the net is cast so widely in this article that there's no hope of having sources on them collectively. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can use publications on Sonic to eventually better reference the article. Think of it as a work in progress.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that. You keep not providing examples. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Use these. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Observation and synthesis of article subjects isn't what we do here. There's nobody writing reliable third-party sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that as notable a franchise like this hasn't had an article in EGM or some similar publication on technology? Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As EGM is not in the practice of covering the Sonic the Hedgehog comic, no. Demanding negative proofs just make you look silly, BTW. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A half dozen editors in AfD deciding to delete an article in a mere five days that others in the discussion think should be kept and that others not in the discussion worked on or come here to read is silly. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Troll through the archives of WP:SONIC, WP:SEGA, and WP:VG. You'll find that this AFD isn't a spur-of-the-moment hammer being dropped on some unsuspecting article; it's the result of the identification of a systemic problem with the way the Sonic the Hedgehog fictional universe (and indeed, fictional universes in general) is handled. You keep talking about "publications on Sonic" and "electronic book burning" but I'm reasonably sure you've taken on this crusade without any critical analysis of what you're crusading about. You just can't write an article that isn't original research without some sources which are not themselves the subject to work with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see far greater proactive efforts made getting those who worked on the article in question involved in the discussion. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:01, 10 June 2008 (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.