Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Tone 22:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other editors have raised notability concerns, and I agree. This is mostly just WP:GAMECRUFT. While there are many sources, looking at them individually reveals that there is almost no WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the subject notable. RSs exists. Lightburst (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As someone who hasn't played a (new) Sonic game since the Mega Drive era, I've never heard of this topic before, but the article seems to be generally superior to most of our articles on fictional elements, being written mostly from a real-world perspective and not hinging exclusively on in-universe plot summary. Is it possible that the perception that this topic is not notable stems from those who are familiar with the games drawing the subjective conclusion that they are a minor element within the games themselves and so should not merit an article over some other topic that doesn't get one? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading through the referenced articles it seems this character passes the general notability guidelines just fine. Dream Focus 00:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while a lot of the coverage cited is trivial, I think that the subject has received enough attention across the reviews cited to meet GNG, as several sources devote significant attention to describing game mechanics relating to Chao. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters with no prejudice towards recreation if someone does rewrite this. The current article is built too much on primary sources and passing mentions to be kept in this state, but I'm 100% sure that sources do exist that discuss the Chao in-depth. We just need to base it on that, not every single passing mention in a Sonic game review. JOE BRO 64 13:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here is game article from Kotaku that is much more specific to these guys if it helps anyones consideration:
https://kotaku.com/new-sonic-fan-game-is-all-about-raising-chao-1797597703 -2pou (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article has just about enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV but could certainly do with improvement with more reliable sources. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Chao are something of a series mascot and appear to pass notability, if just barely._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am reading through these same sources and see things such as interviews with the series director with multiple mentions of Chao. In addition the article has a valid reception section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters per this prior 2014 discussion. The sourcing hasn't changed significantly since then. In their amalgamation, once the primary source cruft is removed, the secondary sources that mention this topic do not warrant more than a few paragraphs of condensed coverage, which fits within the scope of the list article.

This warranted a merge discussion, not an AfD. Outright deletion was never a realistic possibility here as there was a reasonable alternative. czar 15:50, 16 November 2019 (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.