Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses

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, with no merge. This article evinces a complete lack of secondary sources and wider notability (the "Jay Leno" example is particularly instructive). Merging while a debate is ongoing, while not strictly forbidden, is frowned on. In the instant case, since it appears that the merge was done in bad faith specifically in an attempt to derail the AfD, I have deleted the Doctor Eggman article and restored the revisions before the merge, to remove the merge from the article history, and will be warning the user that further such bad-faith merges may result in negative consequences. Nandesuka (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses

List of minor fictional elements with no secondary sources, fails WP:N. Near-duplicate of the recently-deleted list of vehicles; possibly a CSD G4 candidate, though I don't have the old list to compare it with; if not, then that AFD is at least precedent for this one. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Doctor Eggman. Articles that can be merged should not be nominated for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this isn't suitable for merging, for the same reasons that the last one wasn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Care to give those reasons? --Pixelface (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, no problem. Here you go. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know where that AFD debate is. Now explain yourself here please. --Pixelface (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. The article doesn't have any sourced assertion of notability and that would be excessive (and largely unsourced) detail in the parent article, so a merge would be inappropriate. Again. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The games are the sources for the information and the contents of articles don't have to be notable. [break]
        Only a handful of statements in the article are supported by sources, and those are dodgy, untranslated screencaps; hardly reliable sources. The contents don't have to be notable, but the topics do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The games are acceptable sources per WP:PSTS and don't need to be cited. The games are reliable sources. And Doctor Eggman is a notable topic so I don't understand your last sentence. --Pixelface (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The games would be reliable sources, but they do need to be cited. All sources do. Dodgy, untranslated screencaps of the games don't count. Doctor Eggman being notable doesn't make his flying fortresses notable; notability is not inherited. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they don't need to be cited. It's obvious that the Sonic the Hedgehog 2 section was written from the videogame Sonic the Hedgehog 2. [break]
        Yes, they do. Only obvious facts are exempt from WP:V, not claims from obvious sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, plot information does not have to explicitly cite the fictional work it came from. It's understood that the fictional work is the source. --Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It has to be verifiable. Without cites, it's not verifiable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Go look at the featured article Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and tell me if you see any citations in the Plot section. --Pixelface (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That it's done wrongly there doesn't make it right here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Doctor Eggman is a notable topic so this content needs to be merged into that article. Go read the editing policy (particularly the Preserve information section). --Pixelface (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Doctor Eggman is a notable topic, so that article should be on wikipedia. However it shouldn't be bloated out with excess plot details. The information can be preserved, if necessary, by transwikiing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The information can be preserved by merging. When performing a merge, not all of the information has to be merged. --Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It can, but it shouldn't. In the parent article it would be excessive plot detail. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You don't think a mention of the flying fortresses is suitable for the Doctor Eggman article? --Pixelface (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A mention, yes. Something like "This is seen in many of the games, as there is almost always a point where Sonic chases him, yet Eggman seems to sprint ahead long enough to reach his next weapon or escape vehicle" - and that's already there. But this article should be deleted in its entirety. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely in-universe with no third party sources. Possible Transwiki to Sonic Wikipedia AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment I'm adding my comment up here, as it seems to have gotten lost in the below kerfluffle - Let me put it this way. Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses are not notable outside the Sonic universe. Conversely, something like the Death Star, is well known and recognizable beyond the confines of the Star Wars Universe. As an example, Jay Leno or any stand-up comedian could make a joke about the Death Star exploding, or Family Guy or Futurama may feature episodes that parody the Death Star. As integral as the flying fortresses may be to the game, that does not translate to real world notability. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow, what a lot of junk! Delete as unnotable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All or some of the information can be merged into the Doctor Eggman article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "can" is not the same as "should". Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Does not meet criteria; however, it could easily be merged into Dr. Eggman. K im u 18:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article establishes notability per its multiple appearances in a variety of major games. Aside from the games themselves, I would be shocked if strategy guides and other published books as well as magazine articles (I see even in the Amazon.com results that some magazines devoted whole issues to Sonic) do not cover these things and could not be used as additional sources. In any event, definitely consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Sonic games per the five pillars. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources you mention are present in the article. Further, even a specialised encyclopedia would cover a topic from a real-world perspective, not just provide minute detail of fictional elements with no analysis. See WP:IIFNO. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you are concerned with the tone of the article, Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. AfD is not clean up. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm concerned with the notability of the article, not its tone. More specifically, I'm concerned that it doesn't have notability, so it should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which reason are you referring to? 99.230.152.143 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "# Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability has already been established and thus the article should be kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, notability has not been established. If it had, then the article would contain sources of secondary coverage. It doesn't. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, notability has been established by demonstrasting the existence of sources of secondary coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope; still just dodgy screencaps. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, prose text on the topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        None of which is sourced in the article, so the article still fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then add these sources to the article, rather than ordering others to do so. The article passes WP:N with flying colors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe that any of the sources you mention are actually dedicated to the topic in question - if you want to prove me wrong, you'll have to do so yourself. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Believe it and instead of trying to diminish Wikipedia, please help us to actually make its articles better. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        When you add sourced coverage, I'll believe it. Until then, I'll continue to make wikipedia better by arguing that non-notable excess game plot detail be removed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not an issue of whether or not Sonic the Hedgehog is notable, but rather if specific, albeit reoccurring elements of the game series, (i.e. flying fortresses) are themselves notable. Which must be corroborated by referenced verified third party sources. You are right though this information should be captured by a "specialized encyclopedia" hence my suggestion to transwiki to a specific wiki that focuses on th Sonic Universer [1] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the first pillar, Wikipedia is already a specialized encyclopedia and something that is a major recurring element in multiple games tends to be notable. The phrase also gets plenty of Google hits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only the case that a major recurring element in multiple games becomes notable if it receives substantial, non-trivial independent secondary coverage. The fortresses haven't, so they're not notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have had sufficient coverage for a paperless encyclopedia that contains elements of a general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and alamanacs, and that is only a few years old. They are still making Sonic games, and so the notability of its elements and coverage just keeps expanding. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero sourced coverage except for some dodgy screencaps. Zero coverage is not enough to meet WP:N. No amount of game-publishing by the creators will change that. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way. Dr. Eggman's flying fortresses are not notable outside the Sonic universe. Conversely, something like the Death Star, is well known and recognizable beyond the confines of the Star Wars Universe. As an example, Jay Leno or any stand-up comedian could make a joke about the Death Star exploding, or Family Guy or Futurama may feature episodes that parody the Death Star. As integral as the flying fortresses may be to the game, that does not translate to real world notability. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have notability to millions of people around the real world. For Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that is also a specialized encyclopedia, we can afford to have articles on topics that are not as notable as the Death Star, but that still have some degree of notability in their own right. The appearances of these things in multiple mainstream games make it more than just a minor item. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It they're notable "to millions of people around the real world", then there will be coverage from a real-world perspective. That's what's required to demonstrate notability; dodgy screencaps aren't sufficient. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage from a real world perspective, we just need editors to spend constructive time adding these sources, that we know exist, rather than wasting time just trying to remove the articles. Scores of books and magazine articles cover various Sonic related topics. We are not talking about a minor aspect of a minor game, but rather a significant aspect of a whole series of games, cartoons, comics, strategy guides, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that by adding sources of coverage, fine, I'll change my vote. If not, then the article continues to fail WP:N and continues to require deletion. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already indicated the wealth of sources available on Sonic the Hedgehog related topic, but it will take time to go through these sources and expand the article. Fortunately, though, Wikipedia does not have any kind of deadline and so we can keep the article, now that we know sources exist, and allow our editors the opportunity to make the most of these sources. Nothing "requires" deletion unless it is a hoax, personal attack, or copy vio. So long as there is some evidence of notability and a reasonable possibility that sources exist, Wikipedia is not somehow degraded by having a stub or incomplete article. Our project as a whole is a work in progress anyway. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't added any sources to the article, so it still fails WP:N. You've linked to some product pages on amazon, but not demonstrated that any coverage specifically of flying fortresses exists. If you believe it does, ask to have this page userified; when you've added the sources you're welcome to recreate the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made not effort to improve the article in any constructive fashion, but instead are focusing way too much time attempting to get an article that you simply don't like deleted. Imagine if instead that energy was spent helping to improve the article and I have provided links to plenty of sources that can be used to reference the artilce. I encourage you to go through some of them to see what you can find. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't like it, it's that it's not-notable. If you had spent a small fraction of your energy in actually addig the sources that you claim exist to the article, I'd have changed my vote. The links you provide are all about Sonic or at best Eggman; none of them are specifically about the fortresses. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is notable and references have been found and the article has been improved since the AfD began; I don't know why you are ignoring that and being dishonest by claiming you would change your "vote" (this is not a vote by the way, which further shows you do not understand how AfDs work). As a sub-article on the Sonic series, the sources do not have to be 100% about flying fortresses. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article may have been improved, but no reliable sources have been added. Until they are, it fails WP:N. You claiming it's notable doesn't make it so. I've changed my vote in the past when I've been shown to be wrong, but in order to do so sources of coverage which substantially cover - not necessarily 100%, but for the most part - Eggman's flying fortresses. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of sourced coverage in the totality of gaming magazines and strategy guides on the market. We just need to give our editors time to mine these sources. We've only been in existence for a few years. It takes time time adequately reference articles. Because we know sources are indeed out there, we need to allow our community time to make the most of them. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then you can copy this article to a Sonic wiki, and copy it back when you have the sources. In the mean time, it fails WP:N and should be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in the meantime, we should leave the article in place, so that editors have something to work with as sources are found and utilized. There is absolutely no logical reason to delete the article and certainly no reason that actually makes Wikipedia a better reference guide. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but that's not wikipedia policy. If you think it's illogical, I suggest you bring that up at WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is policy, in fact it's the First pillar of our policy and also our oldest policy we ever had. Policies trump guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, your opinion isn't policy. WP:DEL is policy. You misinterpret the pillar, and ignore the other policies. Percy Snoodle (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Wikipedia:Five pillars and Ignore All Rules are very much policies. Please do not ignore them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not; but none of the policies and guidelines you mention say the article shouldn't be deleted if it fails WP:N. It is you who are ignoring WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It passes our notability guidelines, but fails any reason to be deleted. Five pillars and Ignore All Rules both say the article must be kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you're using "Ignore All Rules" as a reason to keep boggles the mind. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That you want to delete a useful and interesting article boggles the mind. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the two of you continue to bicker and repeat yourself boggles the mind. You've both made your cases, now lets leave that dead horse alone. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Doctor Eggman. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Why? Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I believe that information would be useful in that particular article. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Usefulness isn't a resaon. Can you show that the article meets the notability criteria? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a valid reason when considered in conjunction with other good reasons. A reference guide is supposed to be useful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's irrelevant here; the article fails WP:N and should be deleted. Usefulness is, perhaps, a good reason to transwiki; nothing more. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually it has been demonstrated overwhelmingly that the article passes WP:N and should be kept. I have seen no solid reason otherwise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, if that were the case then there would be reliable sources quoted in the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps this article is more suitable for Wikibooks or a different Wiki? --Headcase (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)~~ Wrong page, nevermind --Headcase (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant parts to Doctor Eggman, Delete the rest. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If we merge any of it, then we cannot delete the article, as we need to keep the contribution history in tact and thus would have to redirect without deleting per the GFDL. Sincerely,
  - Well, yeah. I would assume the closing admin would already be familiar with the procedure, which is why people don't typically mention it when voting for a merge and purge. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and merged this article into Doctor Eggman and I trust Percy Snoodle not to revert me. --Pixelface (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You trust wrong; we've spoken about your disruptive behaviour before. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please avoid ad hominem accusations against fellow editors. Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've spoken to pixel about making disruptive edits before. It's a separate issue to the deletion here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've said this content "isn't suitable for merging" but several people here disagree with you. I can perform a merge at any time. So stop acting like you own the Doctor Eggman article. Despite how it was closed, there was no consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dr. Eggman's vehicles. You even admitted that this article is "substantially different" than that one, so your reasons for deletion don't apply. --Pixelface (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We've talked about this before. By sneaking the content out of the AFD process, you disrupt that process in order to make your point; you put your opinion above the rights of other editors to take part in this debate. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further, I know of no policy or guideline that states we must 'respect an AFD'. If the information this discussion covers can be merged, as has been proven it can, then the AFD isn't being 'disrespected', it's be eliminated. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - To 'eliminate' it while the debate goes on is a diruptive edit, made to make a point. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Calling it disruptive doesn't make it so, as proven by my actions not falling under anything listed on WP:DISRUPT. Further, I have made my point very, very clear. The merge solves the problem and doesn't violate any guideline or policy currently in use. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See WP:POINT#State your point; don't prove it experimentally. Performing the merge now, in order to present the AFD with a fait accompli, is disruptive to the process. Presenting it as "mediation" doesn't make it so. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The information is verifiable from the original game content, as well as comic books, walkthroughs, animated series etc. It can also have inherited notability from the Dr Eggman article as per WP:FICT, specifically the section regarding Summary style approach for spinout articles. Just as with lists of characters, Dr Eggman is known for his inventions and it makes sense to list them, either in the main body of the article or in a seperate section. I also think that there is a fair bit of WP:OWN occuring on the main Dr Eggman article that needs addressing. Gazimoff (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability and verifiability both require reliable sources. None appear in this article. I'm well aware of the disputed spinout section of WP:FICT; it doesn't exempt articles from notability or verifiability concerns. Mere assertions on an AFD page are not sufficient. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reliable sources have already been found and indicated above. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, they haven't. A few dodgy screencaps and a link to a transwikied wikipedia article aren't reliable sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:FICT specifically states that for spinout list articles such as this, that notability is inherited and further, that primary sources are acceptable for verifiability. I am happy to quote excerpts as required. My stance on WP:OWN remains on Doctor Eggman.Gazimoff (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:FICT doesn't state that notability is inherited; it isn't. WP:FICT states that spinout articles may be appropriate, but does not exempt them from verifiability concerns. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Doctor Eggman#Creations. That section appears to be relevant to merge this article into. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've reverted the redirect to show the article's existing content. The AFD template clearly states: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." There must be consensus first to redirect and/or merge before making this change. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't blank the article and I didn't remove the AFD notice. Editors don't have to discuss before merging content. WP:MERGE says "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below." --Pixelface (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In normal circumstances I would agree with you Pixelface. However, in an instance where the issue is clearly being actively debated, and it closely aligned with an active AFD it would make sense to be judicious in any content merging decisions. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen (and you probably have too) many AFDs speedily closed due to information being merged into another article. It's a fairly common practice. If the argument it between delete or merge and it has been proven that said information can, in fact, be merged with little to no problems, then just what is left for us to discuss? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my stance is to delete, and possibly transwiki. I do not believe this content is notable outside of the Sonic universe as it lacks real world verifiability. I was speaking to the process of merging content, not as to whether or not I support the actual content being merged. Sorry for the confusion there. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any advantage for Wikipedia in deletion, as this is a notable aspect of a major game series backed by verfiable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see you've argued that point several times already in this AFD. I already provided my reasoning above. Sorry, but I don't engage in this "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" thing. You've made your case, as have I. I was clarifying my standpoint for the sake of Jelly Soup. Thanks. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 03:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability through independent sources. No rationale for justifying this as a spinoff article under WP:FICT due to this list being nothing more than a long line of in-universe WP:GAMECRUFT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Transwiki - Dr. Eggman has flying fortresses, that's an important part of the character, but specific descriptions of each fortress are not necessary (a brief list witin Dr. Eggman's article with simple characteristics would be fine). There's two issues here. Part of this is WP:FICT - while Dr. Eggman's article is notable, and thus there's a reasonable cause for a spinout article for non-notable elements, this list is putting a lot of undue weight on the fortress list, particularly in that the fortresses have little to do with the Dr. Eggman characer directly. The second aspect is that the approach this article is written it is too much in-universe, and describes, in some cases, how the fortress is defeated (WP is not a game guide) and in other cases, is re-iterating plot elements from specific games. If you take these elements out, remove some of the speculation that's present, you'll have a much tighter list -- The list and fortress names can be kept (redirects in place) if each fortress is given 2-3 lines, and then that table would fit nicely into the Dr. Eggman page (presently as I write this, someone copied it verbatim). Transwiki the rest to a Sonic wiki (I'm sure there is one), and you still provide the coverage of the fortresses but in a manner more appropriate for an encyclopedic treatment. --MASEM 05:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Transwiki per User:Masem above, with major emphasis on pruning content upon merging. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 08:38, 17 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.