Fails WP:N. The overwhelming majority of sources are not about this level specifically, but are rather listicles (which are not an indicator of notability per the consensus at WP:ROSENBERG) or articles about Sonic games or video games in general. Of the sources present, there were only three I found significant ([1][2][3]) and only one of those is about the stage itself (the first two are about its music). There's nothing in here that can't be covered in the parent Sonic Adventure 2 article. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 14:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Polygon article that is about the song is also significantly about the level. The music is covered in this article specifically because every source that covers the song, without fail, also covers the stage and how the song works with the stage. The Polygon article doesn't merely talk about how the song sounds, but also how it's used in the stage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that you're discounting USgamer as a listicle article, despite the fact that it's actually a collaboration of opinions. In a list format, yes, but it is not someone's top 10, it is asking their staff to pick a favorite and explain why. I feel like you're misapplying the term 'listicle' here. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Of the three more lengthy sources highlighted, the first is really commentary on the movie's trailer with a brief mention that "this song would have been better". The Polygon is a significant piece, no doubt, but that's just one good source. The third source is really not commentary about the level at all. It commentary on Sonic Generations and how the level was rebuilt and presented in that game. It offers zero opinion or commentary, simply describing the level in its remade format as a product preview. There's nothing said here of importance that cannot be covered at the parent. To suggest the USGamer list is more than a passing mention is... something I'd have to disagree strongly about. It's a throw away comment that the game is "best known" for City Escape, which then launches into "but actually I prefer..." and focuses on Chao Garden instead. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge At first I thought it was notable, but it really only has 2 good sources, and I don't even know if Siliconera is reliable. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconera is reliable per WP:VG/S. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Unfortunately, that is still not enough sources to not merge the article. If more sources are found, I am willing to reconsider. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge despite the number of sources in the article, this article doesn't really pass WP:GNG. Take a closer look at the sources within the article and you'll realize that most of these source only mention the level in minor detail. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 16:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Appears to be a case of WP:REFBOMB with a couple of good sources about the subject but most of the articles used as sources aren’t actually focused on City Escape itself, and that includes the Polygon source on the song. Applying my test, a merge to Sonic Adventure 2 would seem to be the most appropriate coverage, perhaps a paragraph in the Development for the game and a couple of lines about the level and music in the Reception. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I'm all for creating articles about notable video game levels, but this feels like it's really, really straining for evidence of notability. The Siliconera and Red Bull mentions are good starts, but if that's really all there is, it feels forced to make a full article. Even some random Counterstrike map got more coverage from reliable sources. With those sources, I would not even attempt to make an independent article. I recall removing City Escape from WP:VG/R after looking to make it and finding not enough to do so. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Yeah, I'm going to have to go against the grain here. You see, this is a perfect example of why I'm opposed to idea that listicles can't contribute towards notability. Let's look at Red Bull, for example. You could maybe make the case of WP:ROUTINE coverage, if it was something like a "top 20 Sonic levels" list, but this is list of best opening levels of all-time. Also, they go more in-depth than a simple "this level is cool, because it's fun!" or something along those lines. With the aforementioned source, and the sources from Polygon, Siliconera, Nintendojo, and Destructoid, we have at least five sources covering the level directly and in detail, satisfying what Wikipedia looks for in WP:GNG. And even if you want to discount the listicle sources, that still leaves three other sources. MoonJet (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here’s the problem with using a “listicle” to demonstrate notability: if it wasn’t worth an article to a third-party source, why is it worth an article to us? Listicles aren’t wholly non-contributing to notability; they just don’t demonstrate that a whole article is the amount of coverage warranted on a global encyclopedia. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not saying that it's fine if articles are cited only to listicles or anything (after all, many articles that do end up getting merged). I'm just saying that we shouldn't automatically be discounting listicles here, particular if they are a bit more in-depth. I do agree that articles at least generally shouldn't be cited only to listicles (since exceptions always exist), but there's clearly more here. MoonJet (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – Not the strongest sources, but I think it's enough for a solid article. I do want to note that the level and its music are intricately tied and notability on this subject should really be considered together. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When someone says "the music is really good", they mean "the music is really good" and aren't commenting on the level. If they don't think the level is worth talking about, it should not be admissible as proof of notability either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Polygon article clearly talks about the song in relation to the level, not merely praising the song and discussing the level as an afterthought. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It has only a single paragraph on the level. If we isolate it to only critical commentary and not straightforward description for the unintiated, a few sentences. "City Escape" represents the epitome of Sonic the Hedgehog. It’s fast-paced, full of secret pathways and more than a little absurd. It’s infinitely replayable, too. That is arguably less than some listicles would say. So, relation or not, the level is tangential to the article, I don't think that can seriously be argued. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous paragraph includes an affirmation that understanding the song requires understanding the level. You show only one paragraph, implying that it's minimal, when the level is discussed in detail across eight paragraphs. Here's another selection: "And besides, if there’s any musical styling that perfectly captures the mix of family-friendly and edgy that Sonic personifies, it’s bubblegum rock. In fact, everything about this level encapsulates the Sonic ‘tude perfectly. It’s the music, it’s the dumb one-liners, it’s the Soap Shoes ads and product placement. ... To not understand the appeal of "City Escape" is, in our opinion, to not understand the appeal of Sonic at all. If there’s any promise for Sonic the Hedgehog to be great, it’s on display in this level, and especially in this song." The level is not treated as a side element, the discussion of the level intercedes with the discussion of the song until the section that is only about the lyrics. I really don't understand why you're arguing that a subject that is discussed in detail that goes beyond simply describing it in 8 out of 23 paragraphs, more than 1/3 of the discussion centered around the level. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I think it's best to merge it with the SA2 article. I like the level and this article as various reliable sources but, unlike World 1-1 in Super Mario Bros. and Green Hill Zone in Sonic 1, I feel City Escape is not on the level of being an iconic video game stage like the two examples i mentioned before... Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but there's pretty much no level in all of gaming as iconic as those. That shouldn't be a reason to merge it. Even so, it's still a pretty popular level. MoonJet (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Yes, City Escape is an iconic stage in the Sonic franchise, but it doesn't have enough sources (at least right now) to be split off into its own article, unlike World 1-1 and Green Hill Zone. Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]