Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles

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. Did not put redirect in place because redirects are for terms that users are likely to search for; this title seems like a terribly unlikely search based on the discussion. Nandesuka (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of elements of the Sonic the Hedgehog series gameplay and plot sections. It is thus entirely duplicative of the game articles and Eggmans own article and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and it is duplicative of the game articles and Eggmans own article. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Dr. Eggman#Creations. At the very least, this gives a user somewhere to go. Mstuczynski (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a good article with info that's almost constantly expanding.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer[reply]

If it has no references, it's not "good", it's not even notable for an encyclopedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked you were supposed to let people have thier say on these things not just let them have thier say and then instantly go against it.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer[reply]

If you believe that, you clearly don't understand the point of AFD, which is to determine whether an article should be kept or not, and that happens through communication. This isn't a soapbox for inclusionists or deletionists or a vote, it is a conversation. I have asked if there is any notability to the article, and I would hope you would address this point so we dont talk past each other. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Meaningless listcruft. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if this is deleted, please put a copy in my userspace. Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Sonic fan-side says Keep, but my wiki side says Delete. The best solution is redirect to Dr. Eggman. The history of this article is preserved. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree that most of these vehicles aren't notable. However, some in particular, such as recurring ones or notable final boss vehicles (or other notables for whatever reason) are more notable than others and can be merged per Mstuczynski. Though I will change my mind if sources can be found during the AFD period. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Eggman, since I already merged it into that article. --Pixelface (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelface, dont you think that makes the article much too long? DGG (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this page has been turned into a redirect shouldn't we get rid of the deletion sign otherwise you're just putting a redirect up for deletion and that just doesn't make any sense.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)Fairfieldfencer[reply]

Frankly, the merge should be undone; Pixelface has seen where this AFD is going and taken steps to make it fail, but that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Pixelface, please abide by the result of this AFD. If it's decided that the articles be merged, so be it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your edit. This is a deletion discussion, not a merge discussion. Merges can be performed by anyone at any time. --Pixelface (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - but editing to disrupt an AFD isn't constructive. Wait, and abide by the AFD. Don't take it upon yourself to act against it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging content is constructive. Merges can be performed at any time, even during AFDs. I'm not acting against the AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you are merging now in order to make your point that a redirect should be in place. You are acting against the AFD. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep discussing deletion all you want. I do not have to discuss before I merge something. --Pixelface (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just, no. If one user disagrees with a merging, you have to discuss. In this case, there's a discussion right here about the article, so you might as well discuss here. If your reasons for merging the article are valid, I'm sure this nomination will result in a bona fide merging. FightingStreet (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777 and Juliancolton said this article is duplicative of the Doctor Eggman article. Mstuczynski said merge. Fairfieldfencer said keep. Tlogmer said "please put a copy in my userpsace." Zero Kitsune said redirect. Redphoenix526 said merge. So I was bold and merged it and turned the article into a redirect. The reasons given for deletion are "no notabiility", "duplicative of Eggmans own article", "meaningless listcruft", "fails WP:N", "not a game guide", and "no sources.' The content clearly belongs in the Doctor Eggman article. --Pixelface (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're quoting this AFD shows that you're taking matters into your own hands, where you should be waiting for the AFD to finish. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has to wait for an AFD to finish to merge the content into another page. The concerns about the "notability" of the text are moot if the text is in another article about a notable topic. --Pixelface (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not to wait isn't a notability issue, it's an issue of appropriate behaviour. Moving the text prevents its deletion and makes the AFD moot, so doing it while an AFD is ongoing is disruptive. If you don't wish to make disruptive edits, you'll wait for the outcome of the AFD before you make an edit like that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game guide info has no place anywhere. Bridies (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information on how to beat the various vehicles can be cut out. --Pixelface (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, no sourced assertion of notability. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate break-out articles on lists of things like this are not just acceptable, but a good way of handling it. I think that's the moderate compromise way on how to handle it. Trying to eliminate articles like this is not a question of notability, but a very general disagreement on the amount of content to give for games and similar subjects; as it's obvious there are some basic disagreements here, the obvious thing to do is to compromise. This is the compromise. Frankly, I'm surprised it doesn't seem obvious generally that if we did this as the usual practice, we could save a remarkable amount of trouble and go back on writing articles. DGG (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's not "the" compromise, it's something that was introduced recently and is still disputed. Until a new WP:FICT is agreed upon, we have to go by what WP:N says - it asks for coverage, and this article has none. Percy Snoodle (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as this article lacks multiple reliable sources, it will fail any version of notability guidelines. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - but in fairness to DGG I should point out that the current, disputed version of WP:FICT doesn't require articles to demonstrate any sources at all. That's the main reason it's disputed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but we have other policies such as WP:V that require "reliable, published sources", and that is not subject to debate or controversy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The games are reliable sources. --Pixelface (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The games assert the subject's verifiability (as in, the information exists), not its notability (as in, it is worthy of an encyclopedic treatement). FightingStreet (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline — not a policy — and it applies to topics. If the text is put into another article, the notability of the text doesn't apply. --Pixelface (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - WP:N is not the only reason to have separate articles. Look at WP:SIZE, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:Article series. If you think the content is not notable, I've merged it into Doctor Eggman, per WP:NNC, WP:BOLD, and WP:MERGE. --Pixelface (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you'd prefer to have it deleted outright from that article on grounds of WP:NOR, that's fine, but please don't make disruptive edits to escape the AFD process. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The videogames are the sources so it's not orginal research, it's source-based research. I'm not trying to "escape" the AFD process. The concerns over "notability" are solved by putting the text into another article, where notability no longer applies to the text per WP:NNC. The concerns about the text being a "game guide" are solved by removing the information on how to beat the vehicles. --Pixelface (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's precisely what I mean - by "putting the text into another article, where notability no longer applies" you are seeking to escape the AFD process. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. FightingStreet (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game guide, all plot, no sources, not notable Bridies (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what Wikipedia is and Wikipedia:Lists. Consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Sonic the Hedgehog. Easily verfiable. Does not fail game guide as it is not a how to. Delete rationales tend to be the non-argument of Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT, which cannot be taken seriously. The article is not original research, because original research must make an argument, and this article does no such thing. No valid reason to delete, no benefit for our project. Definitely notable and works as a sub-article. Bravo to all editors who have worked on this fine article! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is most definitely 'how to' content within the article. While notability in fiction articles is a grey area at the moment, this is not 'definitely' notable. If it was 'definitely' notable, there would be a bunch of secondary sources in the article. Saying 'definitely notable and works as a sub-article' is an I-like-it argument. The original research comes in the form of (for example) assigning names to the various creations. While as pixelface points out, this stuff could be removed, I would question whether this would leave anything substantial. The remaining content would essentially be plot regurgitation (WP:NOT#PLOT). You should read over Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT. Since the editors on this page have explained why they consider this content cruft (and most haven't used the word) it is not the 'non-argument' described in the above policy. Bridies (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is most definitely not a game guide. It factually lists vehicles associated with a notable game series. Unacademic made-up words like "cruft" are not compelling in a serious discussion. There is no benefit to Wikipedia by removing this article altogether, only another loss of human knowledge and the potential to insult editors and readers by telling them "ha, ha, what you think is important is irrelevant, because a minority of overall editors participating in one AfD thinks so". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It factually lists the vehicles, and in almost every instance describes what has to be done to beat them. There is one single instance of the word 'cruft' in the above discussion. As such, the deletion rationales do not 'tend to be' describing the articles as 'cruft', let alone in the 'non-argument' sense (i.e. stating the article is 'cruft' without qualifying said statement) described in the WP:CRUFT guideline. Your latter statement is pertinent to your ideology regarding wikipedia editing and cannot be used as any sort of justification to keep. Just as I, as an exclusionist, can't say 'well I'd be happy to see this article if it contained stuff about the conception and development'. Just as a deletionist can't say 'this makes wikipedia look like a fansite, it needs to be deleted to maintain professional standards' without qualifying it. In any case, AfD is not a soapbox for your views. The irony is your philosophy is laughably condescending to those you're supposedly defending. Since we seem to be putting words into others' mouths, how about: 'fear not, I know none of you are clever enough to find out how AfD works, or to understand these scary policies that are sometimes linked. I'll defend you by pretending you have a right to ignore them!' That's pretty insulting. Bridies (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting and condescending is telling good faith editors and readers that what they believe is worthwhile and encyclopedic does not fall into a narrow and limited interpretation of what an online encyclopedia that contains elements of specialized and general encyclopedias. If I am correct then editors are able to continue contributing to an article they believe relevant and readers are able to continue to benefit from this example of a list of human knowledge. If, however, the article is removed, no one gains anything. Plus, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that do not mean much to me, but I agree with the spirit of Voltaire: "I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to tell the policy/guideline makers they are insulting and condescending, pretty sure there are proper channels for that. Removing this article eliminates misleading information (the original research) and streamlines the overall coverage of sonic the hedgehog related content (e.g. curbs the forking off of 'characters' into multiple unnecessary lists and articles). The latter is a subjective issue of course, but that's how policy/guidelines sees it. Bridies (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies say that Wikipedia is BOTH a general and specialized enyclopedia and that lists are acceptable. This article is consistent with a specizalied encyclopedia (policy) and a discriminate list (guideline). Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think those arguments have been responded to in the above discussion. In any case, I've posted on your talk page to avoid detracting further from the specifics of this AfD discussion Bridies (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly not a game guide (read WP:NOT), so those arguments seem off base to me. It is apparently an important part of a very very famous series (even I a non-platform gamer know who Sonic is) so it's existence might make sense due to WP:SIZE and the notability of the base article. That said, I know too little about the topic to have a strong opinion, and the lack of cited secondary sources makes me a bit uncomfortable. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're way down in non-notability here. It's not clear that "Dr. Eggman" is notable. A list of in-game vehicles is just cruft. Non-notable minor element of fictional work, per WP:FICT. --John Nagle (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Eggman is most definitely notable. This is a discussion about the List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles, not Dr. Eggman himself. FightingStreet (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.