Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposed merge with Amy Rose

Latest comment: 5 years ago74 comments13 people in discussion

MERGE

There are a full four editors supporting a specific merge text (Joe, Serge, Tuxedo, Tarkus), one strongly supporting a merge (Czar), a few citing those users in support (Sjones, Niwi), a last with some policy backing (Phoenix), and then also Ethan. In opposition are Kokoro, Satellizer, Prototime. By heads alone, there is consensus for a merge. Taking into account the weight of each side (policies and guidelines), I'd say also that there is support for a merge. --Izno (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After some searching, I'm sad to say that I don't think there's enough real-world coverage of Amy to warrant a separate article. The article is almost entirely sourced to the games (which are primary sources and don't contribute to notability) and the secondary sources present are just listicles, passing mentions, and/or unreliable. The Google Custom Search didn't show any significant mentions (and this was the only article solely about her). I feel it's best to cover her in a section here, as she unfortunately doesn't seem notable outside the series. JOE BRO 64 23:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Support per TheJoebro64's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: This again? Well, the last discussion on this was overwhelming against the merge, and I doubt that would change now. So, I strongly oppose, per mine and other arguments from last time. And what's with the bias against listicles? Kokoro20 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, here's the GA version of the article. The reception section, in particular, had been significantly cut down since then, for some reason. Some of that could be added back. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support. The article is used as a coatrack for reams of primary source detail. None of the secondary source coverage is specific to her, or elevates her notability independently from that of the games/series. The Reception is list-like trivia: Jem Roberts of the British Official Dreamcast Magazine called her a "little-pink-dog-type-thing." The second paragraph is even more egregiously non-encyclopedic. Take a machete to this and merge the most important detail to the character list. If and when that independent, secondary source coverage ever arrives, it can split out summary style. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per Czar's rationale. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support, per TheJoebro64 and Czar's comments. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support: It will be sad to see the article go, but I agree. EthanRossie2000 ^discuss 14:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - per Joe and Czar, though with no prejudice towards spinning it back out if someone does it right. She’s a pretty popular character. I would think the sourcing is out there. We just have to write it according to that, and not to every 5 word passing mention in Sonic game reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support without prejudice to recreation if sources do come up. Amy Rose has always been a tough case of does she have enough or not enough coverage - about the most I could add at this point would be we have maybe two lines about her character design in Sonic CD. I think she did around the time a million and one Sonic fictional character articles and settings were merged in 2007-2008, but not now in 2018 when our standards have risen. As I have found in my years on Wikipedia, though, reliable sources do spring up over time, especially with a number of websites and magazines doing new articles that are retrospectives on a regular basis. Perhaps in the future more significant real-world coverage of her impact will be there, but for now the due weight in reliable sources just isn't there. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Have any of you looked at the GA version of the article I linked to above? Surely, there's some sources that were since removed from the article that could be re-added, like this and this. And don't go assuming that's unreliable, just because it's from YouTube. These videos are by Anita Sarkeesian. Now, I do agree that the article currently relies too much on primary sources, but that's not a reason to merge. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the GA version of the article and it's not much better. The WP:VG notability standards for fictional characters have been raised since the article was promoted and the last AFD discussion, and maybe it needs to be reflected in MOS somewhere. Problems I see with the GA version (and current version) are: 1) Not written in primarily out-of-universe style with secondary sources to meet WP:VGSCOPE#6 2) the coatrack issue Czar shared and 3) Lack of notability, as none of the Sarkeesian videos or other sources are about Amy primarily (except one Joe shared). She is only discussed through passing mentions in articles about the Sonic series, or female characters. TarkusAB^talk 15:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, it’s good to note that (ironically maybe) notability is not a requirement for the GA process, and the editor who wrote this and brought it to GA (Tezero) had extremely lenient views on notability, far less so than the usual requirements. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article falls pretty squarely in line with the issues I discussed in this essay. What coverage are the sources? Passing mentions can look good, but it's all fluff and not actually significant coverage. There aren't enough sources explicitly about the character to justify coverage outside of as part of her universe. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

But I must ask, @TarkusAB:, who is raising these standards and why? The standards for character articles were already pretty high in the last proposal in 2014. Contrary to popular belief, sources do not need to be primarily about the subject. They need to be significantly about the subject. There's a difference. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't tell you a who and why, all I can say is it's a trend I've seen on VG character articles the past couple years. That's why I say it should be reflected in MOS. TarkusAB^talk 16:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the standards changed as much as there’s more experienced editors actually observing and enforcing them now. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I dug into the page history and it turns out the Sarkeesian videos were removed from the article as the result of a lengthy WT:VG discussion. The consensus was that Tropes vs. Women can only be included in articles if it was covered by a third-party RS like IGN or Polygon in accordance with WP:SPS. JOE BRO 64 20:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so that explains it. Fair enough. Well anyway, here's a few pieces I've found after doing some searching. Though, I'm not sure if the latter two could be reliable. Those, combined with this and this, which are already cited there, I'm quite convinced that Amy is deserving of her own article. What do you think, @TheJoebro64:? Kokoro20 (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

You’re really grasping here. A lot of these aren’t really helping much. I mean, short listicle entries about cosplaying as her, or a “character ranking” placement that’s only ranking sonic series characters? That’s some really weak stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the listicle is about Sonic characters, it satisfies what we look for in notability. It shows that Amy is one of the more discussed Sonic characters, and we even got a piece about Amy for the upcoming Sonic movie. You know, looking back at the previous merge proposals, I could at least get behind the ones we had for Cream, Silver and the Babylon Rouges. Those were rightfully merged back here. But Amy? No. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

See the Rosenberg solution—listicles almost always contain information that is trivial; they usually just recap plot details while throwing some comments in about the character without actually providing significant discussion. As the closer of that discussion said, "Fictional characters qualifying for standalone Wikipedia articles are those that have major roles in multiple fictional works, have much longer reliable source coverage discussing them specifically, or have a real world impact, ideally all of these at once." Amy fails the last two; the other Sonic characters who have articles have been subject to notable independent discussion and have had some sort of real world impact. Sonic is a significant part of gaming history and his importance to Sega and rivalry with Mario have been extensively covered, Tails has been discussed because of his role as a sidekick and received a few games of his own, Eggman is a classic video game villain, Knuckles has been discussed for his impact on the series (people disagree if it was good or bad) and internet culture, and the Chaotix and Shadow have starred in their own games and have been discussed as emblematic of the series' problems. I'm sad to say this but I don't think Amy has been covered enough to be independently notable from the series. JOE BRO 64 20:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've seen that. In fact, I was one of the few who supported Ken Rosenberg potentially getting his own article. I'm still seeing an unfair bias against listicles here. Nowhere in WP:N is that second point supported. All we require is something more than a passing mention. Going by your last argument, Amy does have impact like those other characters. She is an example of love interests in video games (one-sided in this case, but whatever). Kokoro20 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There’s no “unfair bias”. The GNG requires significant coverage. But how we identify that varies. Some consider listicles significant coverage. Others call it a passing mention. Others judge it on a case-by-case basis. It just depends on where people draw the line. It’s not like there’s some hard objective line where you go “Okay there’s 4 sentences so it it officially qualifies as significant coverage.” Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on the love interest thing, but the question is if it's been covered significantly by reliable sources. From my searches, I don't think it has. JOE BRO 64 01:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added two sources about Sonic being her love-interest in the article (two of the ones I listed above), @TheJoebro64:. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit helpful, but they're still only short list entries (both only like 1/5 of the entire article) and don't really discuss why Amy's independently notable. It's... not much. JOE BRO 64 20:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep / oppose merge - since the last (failed) merge proposal for Amy, the state of the article has not changed. Furthermore, WP:NFICT has not been changed. What has changed however are certain editors' personal interpretations of said policy to, dare I say it, the point of manifest absurdity, when an article such as this one with coverage in 16+ RS (not counting the ones Kokoro20 found above and the Sarkeesian videos which have been removed) is seen as GNG-non compliant. If this article was hypothetically a BLP, its number of sources and notability would be unquestioned - and those articles are supposed to be held to a higher standard than the rest of Wikipedia, not the other way around... Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Come on, you know better than to lean on WP:OSE arguments like that. It’s bad even by OSE standards. Citing how you feel a hypothetical discussion would play out on a hypothetical BLP article as some sort of reason on how we should act here? That’s not a persuasive argument even outside of Wikipedia policy. How would you like me to counter that? Shall I dream up a few fictional discussions that end in a merge? Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

He makes a good point anyway. We hold character articles to a higher standard than most of Wikipedia, when it really shouldn't be that way (and as the essay states, such arguments can be valid, depending on the case). And even disregarding his "OSE" argument, his other arguments still stand. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

My main point was that I consider the sourcing already in the article to meet GNG - simple as that, and there's not much more for me to elaborate on this. My BLP comment was more offhand food for thought on how BLPs are supposed to be held to the highest of standards on Wikipedia and even they don't have to meet criteria additional to the GNG such as listicles not contributing to notability and notability "independent" of their parental media/accomplishments, which, alongside "real-world" notability, are all restrictions not supported by any Wikipedia guideline/policy I'm aware of. I wouldn't say then that it's an OSE argument - OSE would be more along the lines of "John Doe's article had the same number of sources as this and got kept!".

As an additional note - and just to be clear this goes beyond my rationale for keeping Amy's page - I'd strongly support a sitewide RFC on listicles, notability "independent" of something else, and "real-world" notability for fictional elements, as it's not something WP:VG can decide by itself since its ramifications go far beyond its scope. The counterargument to this of course would be that such restrictions only apply to video game fictional character articles, which would be admitting to a bizarre double standard. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 21:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If you’d like to spend your time organizing a site-wide discussion on listicles and significant coverage, help yourself, but what you’re complaining about isn’t WP:VG specific. I participate in AFD discussions for a variety of subjects, and proposing this sort of listicle junk wouldn’t typically save articles from deletion. That sort of sourcing wouldn’t save a song article from being redirected to an album article either. As I mentioned above, WP:VG isn’t so much more strict as they just have an active group of editors monitoring and enforcing things. Sergecross73 msg me 22:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - I just added new content about the character based on three secondary sources that were entirely or substantially about her. There is sufficient coverage in secondary sources to satisfy the notability criterion. Video game character articles should not be held to a higher notability standard than other articles. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Just added yet more content from another secondary source. All the content I have added in the past day has come from reliable secondary sources that talk about this character far more than merely "passing mentions." It's not difficult to find and cite these sources if you do more than a superficial Google search. I understand it's easier not to do this work and simply !vote for deletion, but I think it will be a shame if this article is deleted based on an uniformed "feeling" that this topic doesn't mean the GNG. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The stuff you've added is helpful but I still don't think it's enough yet. Three of the sources are far more relevant to Sonic Mania Adventures than Amy (and the Game Informer article doesn't even mention her by name), and two of them were interviews (and thus WP:PRIMARY). Believe me, as a Sonic fan I personally don't want this article to be redirected, but the sourcing as it stands and from my own research is weak. JOE BRO 64 19:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The direct content of the interviews constitute primary source material, yes, but the interview content itself was published in third-party secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I will agree that the Game Informer article is not the strongest source, but the ComicBook.com source contains significant content about her role in Sonic Mania Adventures, and the GNG does not discount sources simply because they discuss how the topic at hand relates to another topic; if anything, discussion among secondary sources about the topic in multiple contexts counts in favor of notability, not against. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. Nice finds, @Prototime:! I knew Amy had to have more coverage than what was cited in the article already, and that proves it. It would indeed be a real shame to see the article merged with all that's been added since this RFC started. Kokoro20 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I've re-added Sarkeesian's commentary to the article via a non-SPS academic source along with some additional commentary. If someone could take a look at non-English coverage - especially Japanese, I daresay there's a lot more sources to be found there - that'll also be great. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 04:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

None of the added text changes my assessment that the character is not the subject of significant coverage. Adding more mentions of the character (as unparaphrased quotes) will not change that, especially when those mentions come from unreliable sources. czar 03:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The added text is irrelevant to notability. A number of new reliable sources have been added that further illustrate that this topic has received significant coverage. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If those "new sources" only add trivial mentions of the character, then no, that wouldn't be significant coverage. czar 03:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the new sources? Most of them offer more than trivial mentions of the character. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

They consist of unreliable sources[1][2][3], a self-published source (Read-Only Memory interview), a primary source[4], and a contentless listicle[5]. So no, this sole remaining mention of Amy does not constitute significant coverage. It in fact imparts as much as this other cited article does about Amy: that she appears in the episode. My objection above was that the article reads as trivia padded to look like content (or if there is substance in this article, it is buried beneath fluff). These additional sources only exacerbate that objection. czar 03:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What? "Contentless listicle"? Not at all. Sure, it doesn't consist of several paragraphs, but the listicle actually goes into why Amy should be in the Sonic film. I would think the Forbes source is okay too, considering it's situation stance, and the article only being an opinion piece. And you failed to mention some of the sources that were already in there before. That's at least four sources of significant coverage (as in "non-passing mentions", they don't need to be several paragraphs long) right there. Kokoro20 (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think what czar means by "contentless" is that it doesn't discuss why she's significant. The source basically boils down to "Amy should be in the movie because she's in love with Sonic." Also, Forbes pieces written by contributors and not staff are technically WP:SPS since they aren't given the same oversight by the main editors. The IGN and ONM articles boil down to just "Amy has a cool hammer, she should be in Smash" and "Amy is annoying and sounds like Minnie Mouse." That's not sigcov. JOE BRO 64 17:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"Not significant coverage? Yeah, I don't think we're ever going to agree on this one. You can "boil" down anything, if you try hard enough. You're making those sources seem worse than they actually are. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: given this isn't looking to be in favor of keeping the article, I've written this in my sandbox, which can be implemented if the article is indeed merged. JOE BRO 64 17:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there's a clear consensus quite yet. Most of those in favor of merging "voted" before the new content was added to the article. Only you and Czar have still voiced disagreements of Amy having an article after the fact. @Prototime:, @Satellizer: and myself all agree that the new content constitutes as significant coverage. And frankly, it would be pretty silly to merge the Amy article here now. This article, as it is, is already pretty big. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm still up for merging. Vouching for the other merge proponents here, the sources just aren't independently significant enough to justify the character's own page, and Joe's proposed section for the list is much more streamlined and concise than the article as is. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Merge: The article is full of fluff. When you remove the frivolous critical commentary in the reception section and the in-universe cruft, you are left with about three paragraphs worth of compelling information, perfect for summarizing on this page. While the above attempts to save the article are admirable, they don't bring enough meaningful commentary that gives the reader any substantial information. See Shadow the Hedgehog (which was just rewritten) for an example of the quality we should be striving for here. The sources to reach this quality for Amy do not exist. I am a huge Sonic fan too but the article is not very good. TarkusAB^talk 23:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That's quite a high bar to set. It's not GA material or anything compared to Shadow's article, sure, but it still passes the minimum of what we look for in notability. You can't expect GA quality from all these articles. It's quite silly (and may I say, dumb) to merge it here, just because the information may not be all that useful (which is very subjective, like what is useful and what isn't?). I'm sure it could be a better article, if more effort was put into it, like Shadow's article, which believe it or not, was at one point a merge candidate as well. This kind of scrutiny should be saved for a GA review, not determining whether the subject should even have an article. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly not "dumb" since many competent editors here seem to think it's a good idea. And sure perhaps my comparison to a GAC is unfair, I can see that. Look...maybe some WP:TNT would do the trick. Like Serge and some others said, I agree that I'd be open to keeping the article if someone does it right. I still think there is a huge coatrack issue that Czar mentioned. The reception section reads like: "Some people said she's cute. Some said she's whiny. Others said she has an iconic hammer. Others called her a bitch." If this section can be rewritten to actually say something meaningful, I think it'd be great, if it's even possible which I don't think it is unfortunately. TarkusAB^talk 00:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you see, that's why I'm favor of keeping the article. Even if the current state isn't that great, the potential is still there. I'm inclined to think TNT should be saved only as a last resort. It's not like I'm an inexperienced editor myself, as I have been lurking and sometimes editing various articles over the past several years. I've even gotten a few articles to GA, including a character one. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

OK so we agree the current state is not favorable.

We also agree the potential for the article to stand on its own is there.

I think we can also agree that we both want what's best, which is for the reader to walk away with a good real world overview of Amy Rose.

The two options to achieve this right now are the current article or the text Joe suggested above. For my money, I think Joe's suggestion does this better. It is more concise, direct, and focuses on the things that carry real world importance. I feel that the current article is too embellished that it gets lost and ultimately doesn't achieve the same impact. Even if we conclude that the Amy article passes the minimum guidelines, that doesn't mean it's necessarily the best solution today, and I feel Joe's suggested text is currently a better option to accomplish our goal. How do you feel about starting it as a section here, improving upon it, then splitting it the day it becomes unwieldy? TarkusAB^talk 14:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW I'm all for Tarkus's proposal. Start here with the basics, and keep building until it's ready for a standalone article. JOE BRO 64 20:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I support the Joe/Tarkus Resolution as well. I think it’s time to move on this. Discussion has died down after weeks of activity, and there’s no reasonable doubt that any neutral closer would cone to a consensus here of anything other than “Merge”. Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I would rather try and fix the current article first, and save the merging as a "last resort" measure. Should the article get merged, however, I will keep that in mind, because Amy really does deserve an article. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel you're conflating notability with MOS here. Notability =/= MOS and I'm sure it doesn't need explaining that the two are completely different. Notability is for if something deserves an article, and MOS is for how it should be written. As Serge mentioned before, something like GAN focuses solely on MOS and not notability, and in deciding whether an article (like Amy's) should be kept, only notability matters and not MOS (i.e. the current state of the article doesn't matter). If her article passes the "minimum [notability] guidelines", the !vote should be keep - whether if it's the "best solution today" is irrelevant. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly why I was leery about such a decision. The article not being very well-written is not a reason to merge. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand Amy meets GNG and that Wikipedia is a work in progress. We also have the guideline WP:PAGEDECIDE, which tells us GNG is not the "be all end all" when determining to merge. Rather, we the editors are entrusted to make the best decision for the reader to understand the material. So the fact that the article is not well-written is relevant.

I think we both want the same thing, for the reader to understand Amy's significance. Since we agree the page quality is poor, how about we merge to a version that is understandable and agree to split back when someone can write a better version? Is that not a fair compromise between all the discussion here? I don't like the idea of keeping a page in bad shape with the hope and dream that someone might fix it someday. TarkusAB^talk 12:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If I can make a suggestion, how about starting a new section below to ask if the article should be kept on it's current state, and start an RFC there, now that we agree that it passes notability? This is something we should get a separate consensus for. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that notability is being conflated with article quality. If we agree that this article passes muster under the notability guideline but its quality is a problem, then let's have a discussion about how to improve its quality. I welcome that discussion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I like your idea better. Maybe we can start a discussion over at Amy's article on how to improve it. I would rather get that done, if possible, than to merge. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That would not be appropriate at this point. There’s a term for that. It’s called WP:FORUMSHOPPING. You don’t go and start a new discussion at a new venue when a multi-week discussion with many participants doesn’t harbor the consensus you want. This has been discussed plenty at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 11:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The point is I wanted to start a discussion on the article's current MOS state, now that the notability issues seems to have been resolved. No forum shopping here. It can be done here on this talk page as well, rather than the Amy article that I suggested before. When it comes to that, we have 2 supports for keeping the current article, and 3 opposes, all bringing up competent arguments. Not really a consensus yet. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The merge discussion has been a discussion on the article’s state. The clear consensus is a merge. I have no idea what your 3-2 count is supposed to be. I see 8 people in favor of merge and 3 against it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Going by numbers, there is a 3-!vote difference at most. There are 4 editors who believe it satisfies the notability guideline, and at most 7 who don't. !votes that are not based on the notability guideline, but instead are based on "delete because I read the current draft of the article and WP:IDONTLIKEIT", will likely be disregarded in determining consensus - and there is at least one such !vote being made here. Regardless, it isn't up for us to decide whether a consensus has been reached. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

And one of those editors who believes it's notable has supported merging, so going by the numbers it's 8-3. Like Serge, I really can't see any neutral party closing this with any other consensus besides "merge". JOE BRO 64 20:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't twist my position, I said it meets GNG but my stance is still merge. This is a WP:PAGEDECIDE discussion not a WP:GNG discussion. TarkusAB^talk 20:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m rather baffled that a couple experienced editors are having such a hard time reading such a clear merge consensus here. Even if you don’t have much experience in closing discussions, it’s plain as day to see here. You’re getting close to WP:IDHT territory at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not helpful to make bad-faith accusations of disruptive editing, especially as an involved editor yourself. The closer will decide whether or not consensus has been reached here, and having a meta-discussion about whether there is consensus or not is not productive or relevant to the topic at hand. I suggest we drop this line of conversation. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

It’s not in bad-faith, I really am having a hard time with this “4 to 3” stuff. It’s very clear that 8 people objectively and directly indicated that they supported a merge, and outside of maybe EthanRossie, everyone cited policy and guideline-based reasons, or agreed per someone who did. It’s no more “bad faith” than your “IDONTLIKEIT” accusation, which seems extremely unfounded. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The WP:PageDecide thing TarkusAB brought up is the reason I suggested getting a separate consensus on if the article should be kept in its current state. That's why I said it was 4 against 3 here, rather than 8 against 3. The others who "voted" supported seemed to have done so for notability reasons. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.