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. There is certainly no consensus to keep these articles as-is, and while there are some calls to merge the material the consensus appears to be that the subject is adequately covered at Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and that these articles do not contain anything worth merging. I do not see how a redirect is useful (they seem to be unlikely search terms) but I am ambivalent toward anyone re-creating these as redirects. Shereth 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - after a request on my talk page I've agreed to provisionally restore these as redirects pending discussion on a potential merge. Shereth 19:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (American TV and Comic)[edit]

In-universe "fictional biographies" with no real world reference. ~~Merge all salvageable content to Sonic the Hedgehog (character) and delete~~ Delete, since it has no salvageable content at all. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to legal mumbo-jumbo GFDL reasons, merge and delete is not a valid outcome. If this is a merge discussion (which it appears you want), it should be held on the respective article talk pages, not at "Articles for Deletion". -- saberwyn 00:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just delete them. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm a regular "voter" on AFD discussions and I have no idea what Saberwyn is talking about. Merging is a perfectly acceptable and frequent result. I disagree with characterizing these two articles as "in universe fictional biographies". They most certainly are not. They are, however, simply discussions of variations of the same character, and as such I agree that they could and should be merged into whichever of these 3 articles pertain to the ORIGINAL version of the character. 23skidoo (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is perfectly acceptable. Merging and deleting is not, if content is merged from an article, the article must be turned into a redirect to the target of the merge, so that its history is preserved and available. To merge content and then delete an article would mean that the author of the content would no longer be credited anywhere, violating the GFDL. --Stormie (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (TV series) and Sonic the Comic respectively. --Stormie (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Nomination encourages merger of salvageable content. Let that go forward without a five-day AfD deadline. Townlake (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the nominator myself, there's really ain't nothing in the article that could be salvaged at all. No real-world references and citations or anything like that Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does that mean the information is not capable of being cited? Others above seem to agree merger is viable. Deletion seems hasty to me under these circumstances. Townlake (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both no real life third party sources to meet notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is the major problem at heart with the vast majority of Sonic articles. Mind you, at least Sonic the Hedgehog (character) has a few third party real life sources at least! --tgheretford (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? --E x p l o d i c l e_TC 16:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also has a policy for notability for college professors based on their publication history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicative of the main sonic character article. Pretty sure anyone searching for these characters would just search for 'sonic the hedgehog'... There is no salvagable content, only violations of WP:NOT#PLOT (no references either). Bridies (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stuff like this is part of what garners Wikipedia a bad reputation. JuJube (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excess, uncitable plot summary spun off from the Sonic article. Adding any of this junk to another article would only make other bad articles worse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Titular characters would at worst be redirected as valid search terms, but not deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super. We'll get right on using reliable sources like this and this and this and this to write an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can use reviews of the comics and TV show that mention the characters; I would have to think that publications focused on comics and animation would have some content concerning these characters. With any Google search of a notable topic, of course there are bound to be a bunch of fansites mixed in, but the trick is sifting through those and also keeping an open-mind to published sources that don't automatically show up on Google. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sonic the Hedgehog or one of his supporting cast stops Eggman (aided by his robots) from becoming the Emperor of the World." And then they don't talk about the characters any more.

A capsule review on a comic fansite of no particular note isn't really helping your case that there are sources with which this article can be written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I suggest looking for other types of reviews. The out of universe stuff can be referenced in reliable sources and so again, at worst could be merged and redirected without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That reference is a list of voice actors.

You haven't yet shown a source that has two sentences about the comic or television incarnation of Sonic the Hedgehog. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The character in general (both video game and television) is sufficient to actually get a listing in a published encyclopedia, thus again, at worst we would merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence about the television incarnation of Sonic the Hedgehog, saying nothing other than that a Sonic the Hedgehog television show was made. Again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have shown references in two published reliable sources; at least sufficient for justifying a merge and redirect. Sonic is a significant character whose influence goes beyond video games is discussed in scholarly studies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where. Are. The. Sources. With. Which. We. Will. Write. An. Article? Or even an article section? Not a google search, not a vague handwave, not an article about the video games, but actual sources relevant to this article. Right now, if we were to use your sources, we could have one sentence: "Sonic the Hedgehog also appeared in a cartoon of the same name," which is already IN that article, and has no particular GFDL burden since I wrote it just now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we could also say who voiced him on the TV show, we can also note that the character has been referenced in numerous published sources, and looking through other books, we can even add information on who drew and inked the character as well, i.e. at least a few sentences. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Sonic the Hedgehog also appeared in a cartoon of the same name, in which he was voiced by Jaleel White." The numerous published sources" have nothing to say beyond that anyway, and any info on the Sonic the Hedgehog comics can go...in the articles on the Sonic the Hedgehog comics!

You're grasping at straws here. You're proposing things we could add to this article so that we have to merge them to another article. There's nothing here right now worth saving, and any hypothetical thing that might be here that would be saving can simply be added to a different, more-relevant, article - a better place for the info anyway - instead of adding it here first. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could "Sonic starred in a Saturday morning animated adventure from 1993 to 1995" not support the sentence that reads "Sonic the Hedgehog is a fictional character appearing in the American saturday morning cartoon Sonic the Hedgehog from 1993 to 1995"? And if you say, "any info on the Sonic the Hedgehog comics can go...in the articles on the Sonic the Hedgehog comics!" Then, that's a merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any hypothetical sourced, encyclopedic info on the comics. Since this article currently has none, instead of adding such hypothetical info here, we can simply add it to the comics articles. This article currently has no sourced, encyclopedic information that doesn't already exist in a different article. There's nothing to merge.

Moreover, you haven't proposed any hypothetical sourced, encyclopedic information that would better belong in this article than in some other, more-relevant or more-general, article. This can't be saved. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided actual sourced info from a published encyclopedic. There's no reason for an outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided one sentence that is about the existence of the series in which this character appears. And even if the article were deleted, I could take your link to that one sentence from this AFD anyway and add it to the article on the television series where it belongs. So there's no GFDL concern. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a GFDl concern, but also that it is a legitimate redirectable search phrase and in any event, there are interviews with those who worked on the comics and TV shows that can be used for additional out of universe context. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You linked another reference that better belongs in the Sonic X comic article, since it's about the comic as a whole and mentions Sonic only in passing. Again: you haven't proposed any hypothetical sourced, encyclopedic information that would better belong in this article than in some other, more-relevant or more-general, article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've link another reference that can be used to add coverage on the creation and concept of the character in an out of universe format. That makes three reliable sources for out of universe information that provides not hypothetical, but actual sourced encyclopiedic information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it's a creator of a comic describing how fans will react to the comic he's working on, since it's from an interview before the creation of the comic.

When people say "published sources", implied in that is "published sources that allow us to make some sort of useful factual claim." The creator of a Sonic comic telling us "Everyone loves Sonic the Hedgehog" in an interview promoting his upcoming Sonic comic is not a useful factual claim; it fails both the "useful" and "factual" bits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It provides out of universe context of where the creator is coming from with his expectations and impression of the character in question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting into splitting the thinnest of hairs. None of these sources are good sources for any sort of factual claim in an article. Sorry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are sufficient enough to justify inclusion of the material in question. I believe it would help to have additional sources as well, but they do demonstrate potential and some value at present. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help! I'm getting crushed against the right margin! Grutness...wha? 06:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No need for separate article. Anything special about the comic and TV version of the character is already in the appropriate article(s). No need for merge or redirect. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Article has been and is still being improved since nomination. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this edit, the improvement consists of sourcing that this character exists, and that he was voiced by Jaleel White, as well as some trivial grammar/spelling edits. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of that edit, the improvements consist of demonstrating coverage in multiple published sources, including even a published encyclopedia, who voiced the character (out of universe information), the writer's opinion of the character (out of universe information), as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lead of Sonic the Hedgehog (American TV and Comic) and ref2 of Sonic the Hedgehog (Sonic the Comic) into Sonic the Hedgehog (character). Nothing that doesn't fit elsewhere already. The rest is plot-retelling (WP:NOT#PLOT) and original research (WP:OR) against WP:UNDUE. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically all the reasons have been given, but so it's not "per nom" or such, delete as there is nothing salvageable in this article that doesn't already exist in Sonic the Hedgehog (character). This entire article is original research and excessive plot detail with no real world context. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As acknowledged by Sgeureka, I have added salvageable unorigianl research with real world context that can be merged into the other article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only Sonic The Hedgehog (character) is needed. The important info is already on the character page. Schuym1 (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the new info? Also we don't delete valid redirects. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Likelihood of people typing out a namespaced, misspelled name = low. And no, the fact that someone used this name for an article doesn't change that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I think a good deal of editors may unintentionally type in misspelled names in the search areas. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above. Excessive plot content and non-encyclopedic ability descriptions. Kariteh (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As indicated above, encyclopedic material has been included that should be salvagaed in some manner; not to mention that undeniable validity of the article title as a redirect. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What validity is there for a redirect? So that someone could recreate the article with the same content? Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because there is a much larger number of editors who have been working on the article in question or who come here to read them than those who have commented in this AfD suggests that it is a valid redirect and who's to say it wouldn't be recreated with better content. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Stormie. Ford MF (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without deleting content, with the redirect, so that improved articles can be easily written. Not doing the redirects implies a refusal to accept the possibility of improvement, contrary to deletion policy, by which an absolute deletion is the last resort., I think a redirect should be refused only when it can be shown to be impossible that an article can ever be written that might possibly stand. . DGG (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record, if we're going to use the titles as redirects, that doesn't mean that anyone will just be allowed to recreate the content of the article. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 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.