Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic P-06


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Yadaman (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sonic P-06

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Withdrawn by nominator, reasoning is self-evident. Attempted to do a reverse 'Pokemon Test' to determine merge-ability, but due to the name of the page, searchability is difficult, ranging from ~36k results to possibly 44 million (inclusive of irrelevant results). Further determination of merge-ability would require some way of determining the absolute number of relevant search results, which is more trouble than it's worth. Yadaman (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not notable (unreleased fangame) Yadaman (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 7.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm counting at least 8 reliable third party sources dedicated to the subject already in the article. That easily passes the WP:GNG. Fan games are historically less likely to receive coverage that would meet the GNG...but there's nothing keeping a fan gamr from having its own article if it does receive coverage, as this one has. Sergecross73   msg me  15:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable, no evidence of failing GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. That it's fanmade or unreleased doesn't matter, it's mentioned by reliable sources. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: No reasons provided by Nominator. Being a fan game isn’t a reason to delete. definitely meets WP:GNG. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I count three sources from what I'd call reputable sources. In general, fangames represented on Wikipedia are things like Pokemon Uranium or AM2R that are historically notable. P-06 barely gets around 15,000 results on Google, and all three of the sources I noted are editorial fluff pieces. I fail to see how P-06 rises to the level of historical importance or relevance to be kept on Wikipedia, rather than at best being merged into the main Sonic 06 page. Yadaman (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell what you're referring to without listing what three sources you mean (which itself is technically enough the meet the GNG), but I think you need to do to a closer cross-check with WP:VG/S, the community's current consensus for what sources are considered reliable. Sergecross73   msg me  03:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked over all the sources. We have:
 * * Kotaku article from 2019, appears to be a filler piece
 * * Engadget article from 2019, fails to demonstrate anything newsworthy or notable about the game itself, is more of an editorial about the game's development
 * * TeamXbox interview, about Sonic 06, not about P-06
 * * GameInformer article, about Sonic 06, not about P-06
 * * Vice article, about a different, canceled Sonic 06 fan recreation, not about P-06
 * * GameZone article, about the same different, canceled Sonic 06 fan recreation, not about P-06
 * * VK social media post, about ANOTHER different, canceled Sonic 06 fan recreation, not about P-06
 * * Twitter post by the creator of P-06
 * * Promotional YouTube video by a contributor to P-06
 * * The same source a second time???
 * * GameRevolution article, appears to be a filler piece
 * * Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06
 * * Siliconera article, appears to be a filler piece
 * * Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06
 * * Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06
 * * Promotional YouTube video by the creator of P-06
 * * YouTube video by The Completionist, BRIEFLY mentions P-06 once.
 * I count 12 out of 17 sources actually being about P-06, down to 5 if we don't count promotional posts(!). Kotaku, Engadget, and Siliconera I'd count as reputable sources, and even then the Siliconera article is a three-paragraph blip about a new demo release. I've never heard of GameRevolution, but checking they do appear to be on the list, my mistake. The Completionist mentions P-06 *once* in the video in the sources, only to briefly compare it to Sonic 06 itself. The Kotaku piece is almost as short and insubstantial as the Siliconera piece, and is again a blip about a demo release. The Engadget piece is the one I'd call the most substantial, but one or two good sources I wouldn't call a good basis for an article's notability. Yadaman (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by fail to see how P-06 rises to the level of historical importance or relevance to be kept on Wikipedia? Fan games should have around equivalent standards with WP:GNG, perhaps somewhat stricter but your criteria of historical importance seems vague IMO.  VickKiang   (talk)  20:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just think that 'two substantial articles from a reputable source' is a fairly low bar to clear to demonstrate relevance/notability. If that's the standard the community has set, so be it. I'll probably be opening a merge request, because it still eludes me why this deserves its own entire page. Yadaman (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you're trying to just handwave some of these sources away. Like the GameRevolution article. What do you mean "filler piece". It's a detailed, lengthy write up that goes over a ton of the aspects of the game. Same with the "Engadget" article. Your assessment is "fails to demonstrate anything newsworthy or notable about the game itself, is more of an editorial about the game's development. How would a lengthy editorial from a reliable source somehow not count as significant coverage? There's a complete disconnect here between your views on reliable source coverage/notability and the community's accepted views currently. Sergecross73   msg me  21:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * With the statement "I fail to see how P-06 rises to the level of historical importance or relevance to be kept on Wikipedia" OP seems misinformed on what GNG actually means. Importance is proven solely by the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources, not any one editor's subjective judgement. And the sources do in fact clearly exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems well sourced and well written. I don't see what we would gain from deleting this. Nythar  (💬-❄️) 04:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * See what I said above. If not an outright deletion, I think it should be merged into the page for Sonic 06. Yadaman (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you open up an AFD then? And not even mention merging in the nomination? Sergecross73   msg me  12:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because, at the time I hadn't considered the possibility of merging it. If the consensus is to not delete it, I'm suggesting a merge as an alternative. Yadaman (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even with the above discussions in mind, the article meets WP:GNG no question. Even if we were to accept the nom's argument that there were "only" three sources, that would still meet WP:GNG. However, the article has much more than those three, so notability seems well-established for the article. Being "fan made" is not a criteria for any notability guideline that I'm aware of, so it being fan made is not a consideration for its notability. I don't think a merge is a good alternative to deletion here, since deletion is not even on the table in my mind, and the sources more than justify a standalone article. - Aoidh (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I see lots of high quality sources. The article has healthy sections about development and reception. It's a fan game, but that's not a disqualifier. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2022 (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.