Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Sonic Gaiden

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. Petros471 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sonic Gaiden

Fan made "hack" of a video game; no evidence or assertion of notability. --InShaneee 15:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete even though this is probably the most notable hack of Sonic, I don't know if it deserves an article.--Andeh 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit). While perhaps not notable on its own, it deserves a mention on the main Sonic page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For what reason? --InShaneee 21:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Because it's the only known hack of that game. The article itself indicates that hacks of the second game are much more common. I think one or two sentences mentioning the hack would be good in the main article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • That doesn't explain why the hack is notable at all. --InShaneee 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's perhaps- perhaps- notable as a hack, but that doesn't make it notable. That's like saying, "My band is notable among bands from my town, which has a population of 800." In making this decision, I said to myself, "Well, there's not a great deal of asserted notability, but it probably Googles through the roof." I was wrong- "Sonic Gaiden" gets 85 unique and 337 total G-hits, and since "Sonic Gaiden" isn't a 14th-century monk, it fails the Google test. -- Kicking222 23:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps notable?! Only perhaps?! This is the only hack to have two (even if they are only distinct sprite-wise) playable characters in Sonic 1. ----Blah2 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comments like this, and your user page, indicate that you're not stepping far enough away from the subject at hand (Sonic hacks) and considering how Wikipedia works as a whole. While something may be very, very important to you, if it isn't notable enough to have been reported in the media or at least earn itself a massive Google index, it's just not encyclopedia worthy. This is where niche Wikis come in handy - why not find or start a Wiki devoted to video game hacking? Information like this would be much more at home there, where verifiable media sources aren't an issue. They are here, and it's only a matter of time before content like this gets purged. You should concentrate your efforts somewhere where they aren't violating guidelines and constantly in danger of deletion. --relaxathon 21:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• No-vote; Question: How much of the information in the article is verifiable? What would be left when the non-verifiable information was removed? Would the resulting article be worth keeping?–RHolton≡– 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete (and Anti-Merge): At most, it would belong - briefly - in an article about video game hacking, which itself would be a contentious Wikipedia entry. I know, if you care about Sonic the Hedghog hacking, it's quite notable. However, think of how many people care about video game emulation...now reduce that to the people concerned with Genesis emulation specifically...now the people concerned with Genesis game hacking...and so on. It's a cold way of approaching things, but you kind of have to when theres not a single verifiable media source behind it all. This doesn't even belong in the Sonic article. --relaxathon 00:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into the main Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit) article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Question: Wondering about prospects of merging (which I vote against) - there is discussion of this on the Sonic the Hedgehog Talk page, with people tallying their support or opposition. But seeing as this 'Article for Deletion' page is likely to result in quicker action, should that conversation be moved over here? --relaxathon 21:33, 22 June 2006 (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.