Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic the Hedgehog characters who have died


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog characters who have died
There's already a Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters, which points to articles on the characters, including what happened to them. Most of the entries are either robots (in which case their inclusion in such a list is questionable) or are marked as possibly still being alive or might be making appearances in future Sonic games. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are right...but still NO! This article cleary gives out details, through Sonic Titles timeline. You can see/tell from "sonic R" characters that are dead, from past games. althouhg it needs more work, because it looks like a "Stub" to me. Sonic The Hedgehog Characters is also good, I like the way the contents is laid out, but There is a difference,. Sonic The Hedgehog characters that have died & Sonic The Hedgehog Charcaters, if this articles is much improve, it will be worth it to stay This article explains it all, but with less details, it makes this article look like cheap I don't know if it is a delete: Yes or No: I will say No...Waiting for others, for their thoughts &gt;x&lt;ino 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Transfer information to the respective character articles, if it is not there already, then delete the list. Saberwyn 01:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've juest checked them all out, and this information is already contained in the various characters' articles. Changing to outright delete.
 * Delete per above. worthawholebean talkcontribs 02:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, useless article, all information is contained in the character's respective articles. - Pure  blade  | ☼ 02:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete due to this information already being stated elsewhere. Mo0 [ talk ] 03:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Fancruft. --Apostrophe 03:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nop, i say Keep We need a section to tell all characters that passed away in Sonic Titles &gt;x&lt;ino 05:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good heavens, what on Earth for? Delete. --Agamemnon2 14:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Beats me. I'm still trying to get used to video games having characters. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 15:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. We need an article on Gallo-Iberian languages, one on Emperor Muzong of Liao, one on J. William Stanton, and one on the Channel Fleet. But not one on all the characters that passed away in Sonic titles. Delete. Herostratus 22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator. There's no real need for a page like this -- it's actually a category, and one of dubious utility. --FreelanceWizard 09:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, a category for Sonic the Hedgehog characters is fine, but this is bordering on fancruft. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 10:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok if you want to delete it Fine! But the Sonic The Hedgehog characters needs more improvment &gt;x&lt;ino 15:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's not like it hurts anything by being here. You might say there's no reason to have it because the info is in the character articles, but there's no reason not to have it either. Here, the info is all brought together, and besides, other characters might die in future games. If you aren't interested in what it has to say, just don't read it, don't delete it and ruin it for others who are interested. I've said it before and I'll say it again, do deletionists want to read the entire encyclopedia? Yeltensic42.618 17:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they don't and who says they do? Just because an article doesn't "hurt anything" doesn't make it something that should be included on Wikipedia. You could argue the same thing for practically every article that goes through afd. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's nothing preventing you from making the list elsewhere. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you can't argue that for evey article on afd. If it's a hoax, a chunk of garbled gibberish nonsense, a vanity page for some loser like me (see Articles for deletion/Chris bensko, not one of my finer moments), an attack page, an ad, or original research, then bring down the 16-ton weight. Otherwise, there's no real need to delete it. Yeltensic42.618 22:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, but they're not "hurting anything by being there". Which, by your logic, should prevent them from being deleted. --Apostrophe 19:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. Attack pages are a form of trolling; original research is, for good reason, against Wikipedia policy; hoax articles, by definition, are full of lies; ads, vanity pages for losers like me, and garbled gibberish tarnish Wikipedia when people do random article searches and find it. This article is not a troll page; it is not original research, all the information is from verifiable sources; it is not a hoax; it is not an ad for the games, a string of garbled gibberish, or a vanity page about the contributor, nor does it tarnish Wikipedia in any other way. Yes, it covers information that can be found in other articles, but here it brings it all together. True, few people will be looking for it, but you'd be surprised at some of the things people want to find out. By its very nature, Wikipedia has plenty of room for minor or obscure topics not covered in the Britannica...topics like this. If you are not interested in the topic, just don't read the article. There may be others who want to see what it has to say. Yeltensic42.618 22:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, FreelanceWizard, and JIP. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 17:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete insofar as: how can any fictional character "die" if they never truly lived? Seriously.  I read DC Comics as a youth and one aspect was that the term dead was to be expressed in quotation marks.  Jtmichcock 19:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Um...you do realize that by "die", they mean dying in the story, right? Yeltensic42.618 22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's correct.  Jtmichcock 00:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no point of arguging with this fools, they act like they own wiki &gt;x&lt;ino 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no room for personal attacks in Wikipedia. 147.70.242.21 23:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, he calls everyone a fool, whether he likes them or not, it isn't an insult. It's a reference to Mr. T:I pity da fool! Yeltensic42.618 15:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (as per Strong Bad) Oh, this is clearly the best possible use of Wikipedia resources! DELETED!! Ha ha ha!!!! — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to try and clean this up, as Xino likes to mess with formatting on AfDs of his articles, but I'm just going to leave it and say Delete. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Until Jim Carroll has a song about them, they are not people who died. Death is something that organisms experience.  Bytes do not die.  They return to the Source and rejuvenate the Matrix.  If Sonic the Hedgehog could die really, then he'd have been dead by now.  Do not merge.  Do not redirect.  Do not continue.  Geogre 01:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not pass Go? Do not collect $200? :) RasputinAXP  talk contribs 02:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Geogre, obviously "die" in this context means "die in the story" of the games. You have written a lot about 18th century British literature, and I'm sure characters die in works you've written about; how are bytes any different from ink? By your argument, we should eradicate all mention of death from articles you have written. Yeltensic42.618 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Geogre (!!!) and as fancruft/gamecruft. MCB 08:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per reason for its content borders on the sheer edge of absurdity.-MegamanZero 0:25 7,December 2005 (UTC)
 * "DELETED!! Ha ha ha!!!! — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 21:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC) " LOL, i feel sorry for that fool that made the page " as Xino likes to mess with formatting on AfDs of his articles" what's AFD's...oh no...don't tell me, everysingle article i made, has been copyright or i broke the rules &gt;x&lt;ino 15:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, ridiculous fancruft. Andrew Levine 19:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean FanCruft? &gt;x&lt;ino 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fancruft means crappy blather articles written by hardcore fans of the subject with excessively detailed information (they also have names for sub-genres like gamecruft, bloggercruft, and even Simpsons-cruft). As this article is not especially crappily written and is not excessively detailed (it just has the simple info of which characters have died), it really isn't fancruft. Yeltensic42.618 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Another word from interent...dammit! ok what ever
 * But is the "Crufty" similar to "Fan"

Anyway, even if it has crappy details...We are Wikipedians, we improve articles, correct and BOLD! &gt;x&lt;ino 02:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete fancruft. Martg76 19:50, 10 December 2005 (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.