Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgehog Heaven

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 no consensus. --Ezeu 01:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hedgehog Heaven

Non-notable fan work. The article fails Verifiability, Reliable sources, and No original research, as well as a simple Google test. Most, if not all, of the internal links to the article are from templates. Wikipedia is not a directory of fan works. --Slowking Man 08:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are about fan works created by the same group, and the above criteria apply to them as well:

• Relics of the Chozo
• Kong in Concert
• Repercussions of Fowl Lamentation
• Rise of the Star
• The Dark Side of Phobos
• Chrono Symphonic
• Blood on the Asphalt

--Slowking Man 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

One thing I just found out (after digging through the articles' edit histories) that may be of interest: all of these articles appear to have been created by Liontamer. --Slowking Man 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I started Kong in Concert. No hard feelings, though ;). -- Rmrfstar 10:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT is specifically clear on this issue of a "directory". Also, as Slowking has cited, policy interlinks and makes me lean towards delete heavily. Daniel.Bryant 09:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, series of articles about nn fanwork covering video game music. Wikipedia pages look good, content fails. Deizio talk 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Daniel Bryant. Danny Lilithborne 13:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fan music is roughly the equivalent of fan fiction, which always gets deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per above. Of interest only to fans. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi there. Since OverClocked ReMix is notable in-and-of-itself, it doesn't seem wrong to potentially Merge some information with the OverClocked ReMix article, rather than delete the articles outright. OC ReMix started using MediaWiki to host its FAQ and other information a few months ago. Wouldn't be opposed to being pointed in the right direction (at my userpage) to learn how to properly apply the various templates in these articles in MediaWiki, so perhaps the articules could be ported there. In any case, I've got no problem with deleting the article per the nom, BUT would rather see a merge. - Liontamer 23:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Fails web inclusion guidelines. I also don't see how the parent site is notable. It doesn't seem to make its case for passing WP:WEB and any article referencinig a website's mission statement in the lead reeks of conflict of insterest. I will nominate seperately. --Kunzite 04:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Please see the AfD of Kong in Concert from April 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kong in Concert. This one at least, is a legitimate album, based on its popularity. I agree there is a lack of quality references, but it is useful enough that to have it is a Good Thing: this article is of high quality and is a useful resource to those who might have heard of the album. -- Rmrfstar 10:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Since that AfD in April 2005, we've gotten much, much, much more serious about requiring quality references from reliable sources. Plenty of articles from that era got kept as "interesting" or "cool" that would never pass muster today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but meanwhile, I'm worried that "has no reliable sources" is used as a catch-all "Hsssh! ...and I've got more hssssh where it came from" kind of excuse for deleting content. Lack of sources is foremost a cleanup criterion, not deletion criterion. I hate it when people bring articles to AfD when it's obvious that articles have at least a good possibility of getting sources. Everyone gets terribly excited when they see "hey, if it's unsourced, you can delete it"; No one gets excited when they see "anyone can and should be constructive and add sources when they doubt the article's statements". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Even though these songs were inspired by games, it doesn't necessarily mean it would only be of interest to fans. That's like saying, for example, if a music is inspired by a popular artist, it would only be of interest to fans of that artist. Or saying "This jazz album is up for deletion, since it would only be of interest to people who want to hear jazz." In short, I see no reason to delete this article. .V. 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see much of an argument to actually "keep" (let alone "strong keep") the articles there, nor an assertion of the notability of the content, just a disagreement that fan fiction is only of interest to fans, which is pretty well established on Wikipedia. Any ideas re: WP:MUSIC or WP:WEB? Deizio talk 22:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, add headers requesting improvement. You could always just place headers requesting sources and/or establishment of notability, rather than impulsively moving for deletion. Primary sources are in fact available. I'm mildly deletionist myself in my view of Wikipedia, as I see a lot of fancruft added all the time, but have also respected the fact that notable articles which are either stubs or do not contain the necessary sourcing typical of top articles have been kept with the intention of improving them, rather than deleting them as a knee-jerk response. I've struck through my earlier comments, specifically because of Kunzite's comments of OverClocked ReMix itself not meeting notability guidelines.

1. If you Google "OverClocked ReMix" (with quotes), there are about 186,000 results, and "OC ReMix" (the common abbreviation for the site used in its music tags) lists 135,000 results. Google the word remix, and OverClocked ReMix is the second result out of 76,300,000 behind Remix Magazine. However, keep in mind Google is not a be-all-end-all litmus test ("In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive"). That is specifically why search engine tests are not a factor in Web notability guidelines.
2. While merely a sub-culture (amateur video game music arrangements), OverClocked ReMix is the most popular and influential site related to that culture, with the largest collection of video game music arrangements on the internet. Especially given the additional information below, I would argue that it is a viable instance of genuinely notable fan culture rather than non-notable.
3. Support from video game industry professionals - OverClocked ReMix has received praise and support from several notable musicians/professionals in the video games industry not limited to Video Games Live co-creator Tommy Tallarico, Secret of Evermore composer Jeremy Soule (who has contributed an arrangement to the site), Doom lead designer John Romero, Donkey Kong Country series composer David Wise, 7th Guest composer The Fat Man (who has contributed 2 arrangements to the site), and Secret of Mana composer Hiroki Kikuta.
4. OverClocked ReMix press clippings - I'd argue that coverage from Salon, G4/TechTV, Electronic Gaming Monthly, 1UP.com, and MP3.com are sufficient in terms of point #1 of the Web notability criteria.
5. In terms of Music notability criteria, I believe OverClocked ReMix satisfies the first and fifth bullet points of the "Others" section in regards to the video game music arrangement genre, which is outside mass media traditions: "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre" and "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" (in this case, magazines, television, and leading websites devoted to video games [Electronic Gaming Monthly, PC Gamer, Game Informer, Edge], technology [G4techTV], and online music [MP3.com], respectively). Though it's easy to do and looks convincing I'm sure, there's no excuse for Slowking Man flippantly linking to the same music notability page in the deletion nom if a proper explanation isn't given as to why the albums would fail the linked criteria.
6. By extension, my conclusion is that since the music entity is notable, the albums created by it are notable. As noted in the Albums section of the music notability guidelines, it is viewed by some as a controversial extrapolation, but one that I support in this case (and all other cases).

If the album articles are deleted and/or OverClocked ReMix is nomimated for deletion, I will have the decision taken up at Deletion review. I believe that the nominating admin is assuming bad faith on both the group's notability and the potential verifiability of the information listed in these articles, that the group's notability is legitimate thereby permitting the existence of these articles, and that the procedural action being taken should be to label the articles as needing improvement rather than deletion. - Liontamer 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Pre-emptively threatening to take something to DRV is not, imho, terribly appropriate. Cross that bridge if-and-when. And instead of "Keep, add headers requesting improvement", how about "Keep, I created / love / cherish these articles and I'll be happy to add the citations, notable press coverage and whatever else needs to be done to demonstrably bring these articles in line with WP:MUSIC"? My opinion was certainly offered in good faith, and if the articles (rather than the AfD discussion) demonstrate that these topics pass the bar, I'll happily change it to keep. Deizio talk 02:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• I definitely felt your specific observations were in good faith, Deiz, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. My issue is with the nomination and most of the conclusions drawn in the discussion being in bad faith, particularly the intention to AfD OverClocked ReMix's article. Which is why I kept it in mind to use 'if' regarding deletion review. Since it seems not many here are even familiar with OverClocked ReMix or video game music sub-culture, it would have been more appropriate to discuss questions of notability in the appropriate Talk pages first. The articles can be improved, I agree. My end of the discussion aims to clarify that the subject matter of the articles is notable enough where the articles should be flagged to be improved by attaching proper cleanup headers. With my points stated, that's now left for others to decide. Contrary to your thinking, however, if the AfD discussion demonstrates that these topics pass the bar, the articles should be left to be expanded upon and better formatted. You're criticizing the nommed articles for not demonstrating notability enough, and that's fine. But there's no sense in taking any article on a potentially notable topic, especially if the attempt to clarify notability is in this discussion, and deleting it because it's not the perfect article. If an AfD established notability despite it not yet being established in the article, I find it hard to believe that the resolution would be to delete rather than to keep and subsequently establish notability within the article as well. - Liontamer 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• One does not have to be familiar with a topic to nominate it for deletion. Such things need to be looked at thought clear eyes, not the rose colored glasses of fans of a website or forum. The article currently reads like a press release and the usual "forum drivel" that tends to be amassed in articles about websites. i.e. "The site's mission statement explains how its members seek to prove that such music "is not disposable or merely just background, but is as intricate, innovative, and lasting as any other form...." and "Site-related sub-forums include Reviews, where members can discuss ReMixes posted to the site, ReQuests, where members can request particular pieces to be arranged, Judges Decisions, where the Judges Panel posts their decisions on submitted arrangements, and Site Projects, where members organize community projects and collaborative efforts that benefit the site." The nature of an internet forum is certainly not encyclopedic.... "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance" I researched the topic prior to mentioning that I should nominate it for AFD. I always do a through search of the Lexis Nexis newspaper and magazine databases for multiple countries and regions of the United States. I found one "trivial mention". I also went through the citation list that you provided, most of them are blogs and do not meet the criteria listed in WP:RS. Your google results are also bloated: "Results 361 - 361 of about 121,000 for "OverClocked ReMix" -Wikipedia . (0.15 seconds)" and "Results 271 - 277 of about 113,000 for "OC ReMix" -Wikipedia . (0.17 seconds)". This means that there are a few internet sites which mention the OC Remix multiple times. i.e. forums, blogs, and the like. If the article passes notability by citation, it's only by relaxing the interpretation of the reliable source guidelines to include blog entries. --Kunzite 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• I hear ya, but it's still important that notability is asserted and established in the article. Otherwise the next deletion-hungry random page patroller could start the process all over again. The WP:xx notability criteria apply to articles rather than AfD discussions. Deizio talk 12:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I would like to point out that OverClocked ReMix is the second result that appears in Google when one searches the word "remix," even before the wikipedia entry on that subject. That in itself should be proof enough that the website is, in fact, quite notable. But of course the comments provided by Liontamer above help too! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.23.78 (talk • contribs).

The Google bombing effect does not indicate notability. --Kunzite 00:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please. OverClocked ReMix doesn't google bomb at all. Furthermore, the amount unique google hits can be used to indicate notability, but it can't be used to indicate un-notablity. Read up on denying the antecedent, please. --DavidHOzAu 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I always AGF. I never accused anyone of was google bombing. I said the effect does not indicate notability. I also do not beleive that Google searches can be used to determine notability--that's done by the methods listed in WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:WEB, WP:MUSIC, etc.. --Kunzite 03:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or failing that Merge into one article ("OverClocked ReMix album projects" or like), or back to OverClocked ReMix article, with some trimming. Some of these have gotten media mentions (Slashdot articles for Kong in Concert, Relics of the Chozo (I think) and The Dark Side of Phobos, at least), so we're not exactly talking of an insignificant phenomenon here; OCRemix is famous among game music fans, and their projects do attract attention within the community. Like I imply above, we should rather try to clean these up and add references where needed; we're clearly not talking of an utterly marginalised phenomenon here and I believe the information could survive somewhere. I agree that these are not "real" albums and as such it's debatable whether or not they need articles of their own - some of these just don't, like RoFL - but merging them could be right in any case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, add headers requesting improvement or Merge I agree with Wwwwolf and Liontamer. I think that OCRemix, and on that, a lot of the albums listed there are notable, and that they should be kept and fix them up, and if they fail that, merge into a less detailed 'OCReMix projects' page/pages. Yadaman 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep One shouldn't assume that all the links on a page are from templates at the bottom. That's a joke. Could it be that those very links were removed from the main article because they simply reappeared in the navigation box at the bottom. Yes, because the Manual of Style stipulates that we shouldn't replicate links in a see also section if they appear else where. Don't kill the article for following good practice! Furthermore, have you actually downloaded the music for yourself? It is free after all, the community is not gaining anything for having it up here, which I believe the whole "not a directory" thing was about in the first place. Lastly, Hedgehog Heaven has been referenced by IGN in an article. What more reliable sources do you want? Articles served up on a silver platter? For the record, we used to have five or so fan-related articles under {{SonicFeatures}}. The only thing accomplished by deleting this and the other two fan-related articles that are left will be to alienate [[the community that is helping to improve this article. Please don't delete it, this is a joke of deletion policy, and smells a lot like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. —DavidHOzAu, feeling somewhat annoyed at 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. OCRemix is probably noteworthy, but we're not talking about OCRemix. Every single album on OCRemix is not noteworthy; fan albums are almost never noteworthy, and there's no commentary in reliable sources independent of the subject. WP:ILIKEIT still doesn't trump WP:V or WP:RS. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Wwwwolf, but delete those which cannot be reliably sourced. Yamaguchi先生 06:48, 1 November 2006
• Merge unless professional reviews and sources can be found. A shame these weren't commercially released, or they'd have some kind of immunity. But notwithstanding, most aren't even good enough for commercial release, so meh. They also don't get too much attention at all; I had an external link on the Chrono one that barely saw a couple hits a day (I eventually took it down). But I'd caution OCR forumers reading this against voting DELETE, since you'll probably be banned for it. After all, they banned tens of people for criticizing the addition of a sidebar to the site's layout. --Zeality 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Brother please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.195.86.36 (talk • contribs).

• Keep All There all legit albums and a part of OCRemix —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.185.66.204 (talk • contribs).

This vote was this user's first edit. -- Rmrfstar 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Mentioning all OCR's side-projects couldn't hurt, but w/o sources these articles aren't going anywhere :( Roffler 18:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep All. Since the websites are verified as existing, and the research and information regarding them appears to be accurate, they are worth keeping. It also raises awareness of works based on other works, such as videogames, as in these instances. These fan works are notable for their very nature. Warwolf 08:47, 3 November 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.