Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Eraser


 * 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 Merge and redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games. bd2412 T 04:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Eraser

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable video game, fails WP:GNG. See related discussion at Help desk – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Probably redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games. From what I can tell, OP on the Help Desk is correct, and basically everything I'm seeing is patently unreliable. Like I said there, it's possible that there are some ~1991 era print video game magazines that cover it, but which haven't been digitized, but until someone digs them up, there nothing to write an article with.  G M G  talk   17:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Underrated Retro - Sonic Eraser Review Tech Raptor - Sega Meganet: Yesterday's Digital Future The Games Machines (Wikipedian) - Sega Meganet
 * Oppose . Sonic Eraser is mentioned in the following publications:
 * Additionally, it is the third game (second original game) in the long-running, extremely successful Sonic the Hedgehog franchise. ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  18:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, TechRaptor is currently marked as failing the reliable sources criteria for video games. The Underrated retro site appears to be a glorified blog, and an inactive one at that. It appears to be sufficiently obscure that VGRS doesn't even cover it, which isn't a great sign, since in my experience VGRS is pretty good. The book is from PediaPress, who apparently just publish fan crated wiki content, and so is less than unreliable.  G M G  talk   18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog, but have its section considerably expanded. ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  18:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably not "considerably", considering the lack of sourcing to verify content, and the fact that it's a largely inconsequential entry in a massive 25+ years multi-media franchise. Anything more than a brief mention would probably be an WP:UNDUE issue. Sergecross73   msg me  19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 18:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to either of the aforementioned possible targets given the lack of evidence of notability. Expansion of existing content, as suggested above, could be be problematic given the lack of WP:RS, but that's not really a matter for this AfD discussion. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional comment It might be worth calling for a Japanese speaker to check for references given that if they exist they are likely to be in Japanese publications. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well crap Dorsetonian. You just made me realize that... I'm dumb ...and completely overlooked the doggone half dozen non-English versions, including a GA in Russian. They seem to have non-overlapping non-English sources to boot. So... probably keep, stubify and slap on an expand template.  G M G  talk   18:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh... at the very least it should be a redirect with possibilities. I'm conflicted over it if you can't tell.  G M G  talk   20:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've listed the sources below and their reliabilities.
 * I left a note at WP:VG. I would be really helpful to have a Russian speaker around. I know that GA criteria can vary pretty wildly across projects, which is why I'm so conflicted.  G M G  talk   02:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect - per my rationale when I redirected it three years ago. Lack of sources to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  19:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What of the sources listed below? ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The reliable references listed below meet WP:GNG. ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think every single one is a fansite (Sonic Cult, Sonic/Sega Retro, GHZ) or a database entry (Gamespot). Also, the GiantBomb is a wiki, so it fails WP:USERG, and Sega.jp is a first party source because it's Sega's website and they made the game. None of the below are reliable sources that discuss it in significant detail. Sergecross73   mme  00:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant only the ones that have ticks next to them. I realise that sega.jp is a first-party source, hence why I labelled it that. I realise some of them might border the too-fanlike criteria, but I think Sega-16 and the Spanish website should be considered reliable secondary sources; Sega-16 is listed as reliable in VGRS, and the Spanish site is a valid review of the game.
 * theghz and the Sonic Cult look to be more fansites, so they should be considered unreliable. This leaves a first-party reference regarding the release date and a non-English review from another potentially unreliable website. I don't see how this is enough to keep the article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect, with my reasoning above. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

P*h31 source analysis
This is a reference library for all refs used in international Wikipedia entries on Sonic Eraser. Please keep this at the bottom of this page as a reference for partakers in this discussion.

The French, Korean, Polish Wikipedias have no citations for verification. The Portugese Wikipedia redirects to Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game).


 * Italian Wikipedia


 * Dutch Wikipedia

This article is GA-class.
 * Russian Wikipedia

~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  00:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect Per Serge. Of the sources offered at this AFD from the Russian wiki: The first is sega.jp, which is a primary source and therefore doesn't support notability. The second, GHZ, is an unreliable fan site, with no credentials listed or history of fact checking. The third is Sega 16, an article by Ken Horowitz which is generally considered reliable, but we have a single paragraph on the topic in a broader list of various games. It's not really indepth coverage. Fourth is a spanish site, which I cannot evaluate because it appears to be offline and is not stored on Wayback. 5th is a Gamespot directory listing, no good. 6 and 7 are Sega 16, but not by Ken Horowitz, making them unreliable by current VG project consensus. From the Dutch wikipedia, we have another fan site with no credentials, and which doesn't even contain any information just some screenshots. From Italian wiki, we have Segaretro, an unreliable fan wiki, Giantbomb, another open wiki, a Japanese Sega site (which is a primary source, so doesn't count towards GNG), and the same GHZ fan site from Russian wiki. So from all this, we have a single reliable secondary source with a single paragraph dedicated to the game. The game definitely exists and passes WP:V, but there's no coverage that shows it passes WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Consensus nearly reached. It’s pretty strange how the Russian Wikipedia entry is GA but I can’t even get a stub. It speaks more to the disorganizedness of the Russian entry than anything else, though.


 * We’ll wait max. three days for ’s finalised view, and after that, an additional 24 hours in the case that any other Wikipedians would like to contribute something meaningful to this discussion. ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  04:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What? AfD was opened today. Will be closed in seven days or more. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  04:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, there isn’t much more room for debate, unless someone presents more resources. ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  04:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The notion that there might somehow be a limited space or room for discussion in an AfD is fundamentally mistaken. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  04:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, this isn't even an AfD. Someone nominated it for deletion even though no parties actually want it deleted, and this just happens to be the place we're holding this discussion, instead of its talk page. So yeah, I'm pretty firm when I say I don't think there's any other topics for discussion or rational and useful debate on this topic unless more references show up. ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  08:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know what you're talking about, it's very much technically an AFD. Someone nominated it for deletion. The resulting discussion is pointing towards "Redirect", which is a perfectly valid outcome for many AFDs. AFDs run a minimum of 7 days generally. You're free to stop engaging in the discussion and repeatedly re-voting and wait for the conclusion. -- ferret (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this. This is WP:AFD in every sense, technical or otherwise. As a participant, you have no say in when it ends, that's up to a uninvolved admin or experienced editor evaluates it for a consensus. They usually don't do that until 7 days have passed. Sometimes they are close it early, but I kind of doubt it'll happen here, with the formatting nightmare that's been created in these discussions (the continual changing stances, crossing out comments, adding massive charts, etc. - I doubt anyones chomping at the bit to evaulate this one when it's such a mess to read through.) Sergecross73   msg me  13:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my aggressiveness to conclude this discussion. ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  01:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect (and merge what can be reliably sourced_ to Sega Meganet, or alternatively if it turns out there is sufficient SIGCOV in non-English RSes, weak keep. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  04:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * (saw on WT:VG) Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The key point here is reliable and in-depth, as none of the above sources (including the ones from the Russian article) reach this mark. They are mostly short and directory-like entries. The only lengthier ones are GHZ and Uvejuegos and neither looks reliable. Russian article simply uses sources we don't consider reliable. I don't oppose a redirect to a likely target. I'm not sure we can merge due to lack of reliable sourcing. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But, it still is a video game in the Sonic the Hedgehog series. Because of a lack of reliable resources, Sonic Eraser instead should act as a redirect to the main Sonic the Hedgehog series page. Have you any arguments on why it should be outright deleted instead? ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  01:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect is the same as delete and redirect. You don't redirect notable topics. And I said that redirect is fine. It is implied in AfDs that a deleted page can be redirected regardless if it's a likely search term. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect (Again.) Sorry for being wishy washy on this one. I just didn't want to make the hugely myopic mistake of redirecting an article that could have been legitimately improved to a GA on another project. But if there's a pretty solid feeling that it's an anomaly then I'm fine with it. No problems redirecting to Sega Meganet rather than List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games.  G M G  talk   13:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog games. Though sourcing is incredibly weak, the game is a possible search term. It could also be mentioned at the main Sonic the Hedgehog article. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  20:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge. With the gamehompo (which contains useful info about gameplay), and The History of Sonic the Hedgehog (which can be used to support the basic info (developer, publisher, platform, release date etc) and the inspiration and re-release info) sources, we still have some good info to put in List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games or Sega Meganet. Adam9007 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like an interesting possibility. ~ P*h3i   (talk to me)  01:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I forgot about the Ken Horowitz Sega-16 article, which is also reliable. Adam9007 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2018 (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.