Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Adventure 2 The Trial


 * 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 redirect to Sonic Adventure 2. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure 2 The Trial

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not WP:notable. Just a demo version of a game. No independent notability.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sonic Adventure 2. While this demo existed, there is nothing to indicate that it was independently notable from the finished game.  The article has no reliable sources, and is poorly written, thus there is nothing worth merging to the main article.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect Agree with 64.183.45.226. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect - All this is, is a small demo for Sonic Adventure 2, containing a single level that largely unaltered from the final game. All the differences are trivial (Sonic has slightly different shoes!) and not worth mentioning. There's no way it needs its own article. The main article doesn't even mention it, and its a WP:GA. Sergecross73   msg me  13:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article makes no claim to independent notability, and as someone who was familiar with this demo when it came out, I can't think of any reason why it would ever be mentioned outside the context of Sonic Adventure 2. No sense in making it a redirect, since it's not a likely search term; anyone looking for info on this demo would naturally look up the Sonic Adventure 2 article first.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters all that much, but it could be seen as a plausible search term - its a real name and doesn't have any implausible disambiguation (its not Sonic Adventure 2 (2001 video game demo disc) or something like that.) And while its not currently in the article, it could be, as a sentence in the development/release/promotion type section. There's database entries that could source its existence, and surely it received some coverage back in the day, when this game was a big upcoming release. Not nearly enough to meet the GNG, but to warrant a sentence in the main article and a redirect. Sergecross73   msg me  16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Like I said, though, anyone looking for info on the demo is going to head straight for Sonic Adventure 2; they're not going to assume the existence of a separate article for the demo. And even if they do try searching for the demo, long before they type in the whole title it will be clear from the drop-down box that their only option is to go to Sonic Adventure 2.
 * If we're talking about a well-experienced Wikipedian - absolutely. But we're not - that's not the main reading population. Most average people have no conception of things like the "GNG" or what requirements there are for a subject to have its own article. Look no farther than the number of articles by first time editors at AFD or CSD for proof on that. Not to mention, multiple fan wikias have stand-alone articles for the demo. You're just giving far too much credit to the average person typing words into that search bar... Sergecross73   msg me  03:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need to know the GNG to intuit that Wikipedia is not going to have articles on every possible subject all the way down to the fingernail on your neighbor's pinkie. I remember using Wikipedia before I started editing it; I was often surprised by the things WP has articles on, never by anything WP doesn't have an article on.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's great, but I don't think you represent the average causal reader. You might be unable to tell anymore, because I've been cleaning up their messes on Wikipedia for years, but the Sonic fanbase tends to think everything in the Sonic franchise needs mention and its own article. They're always trying trying to create articles that their respective wikia has, just because Wikipedia doesn't have one yet. Why doesn't Silver the Hedgehog have its own article? Or Sonic Eraser? Even the most obscure junk like Wechinia has at least 3 wikia articles on it, so they think Wikipedia needs that too. Its never ending. And considering this standalone wikia article and this standalone wikia article exist, and someone created the article on Wikipedia now, I can't possibly see how you could reason otherwise here. Sergecross73   msg me  14:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between someone creating an article and someone expecting an article to already exist. But if you think redirects are the best way to stave off the creation of wikia-type Sonic articles on Wikipedia, then I cede the argument to you, because I can't claim to have spent heaps of time editing the Sonic articles on WP. (Besides, as it is I've probably spent too much of our time here debating what is really a fairly minor point.)--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Sonic Adventure 2. Not independently notable. Possible search term. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2017 (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.