Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Hearts III (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. Ironholds (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts III
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Violates WP:CRYSTAL. This game has not been confirmed yet, and the only information is on rumors and speculation. JDDJS (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:CRYSTAL states that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." This article has verified speculation, so it does not violate the policy. Discussion has already taken place, and the article has been listed as kept. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL says that speculation and rumors are not allowed even if it is sourced. JDDJS (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What discussion are you referring to? The only other AFD was years ago and resulted in a delete. 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It was under a different name. I will try and find the discussion. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, nevermind. There was never a discussion about this exact article with this content. The one I was thinking of was Articles for deletion/Kingdom hearts 3 (video game), which was about a failure of an article, and User:New Age Retro Hippie wrote this article afterwords. The point still stands though that your argument is invalid as the speculation is sourced and notable. Also, the speculation is only a third of the article. The other two thirds are official statements and general critical coverage of the game, both of which would be actually in the article when the game is released. The "Rumours and speculation" section is just filler for now. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very little is not speculation. And while sourced speculation is allowed, as far as I know, there are no other articles that are almost entirely speculation. If you can show me an article that survived AFD or had made some other significant milestone that was made mostly of speculation, then I'll consider closing this AFD early. JDDJS (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the same article? There are three sections about the same size, each with 5 references. "History", the biggest section, which is all official comments by the developers on when the game will be developed, why it's taking so long, etc. "Rumours and speculation" and "Expectations" are the other sections, which while the content seems similar, one is about reliable source's rumors and speculation, while the other is actually pre-release reception. I believe this article is encyclopedic, and meets guidelines. Blake (Talk·Edits) 12:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Blake's comment.Tintor2 (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with the concerns by Blake and Tintor2. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - A highly anticipated video game will gain coverage prior to its release. The amount of sourcing in the article support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, delete, delete. This is a textbook case of WP:CRYSTAL.  By "unverifiable speculation", we mean that the details being speculated are unverifiable, not that the existence of speculation is unverifiable.  Since the game is not yet even in development, this entire article is made up entirely of people guessing what might be in a game that might not ever be created.  There is nothing encyclopedic about that.  Powers T 15:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The game may not have been announced but it is still notable and should be kept as it has had a significant amount of coverage, try to remember that Notability is not temporary. King Curtis Gooden (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep The game has been mentioned within the industry and is well established as a future title. Its not unlike Duke Nukem forever except it will hopefully be a better game and not sit it game-hell for so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.207.146 (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not at all like Duke Nukem Forever, because Duke Nukem Forever was actually in development when it became notable. Powers T 22:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note At my sandbox, I copied everything from the Kingdom Hearts III page that wasn't just speculation. There seems to be nothing left there that can't just be added to Kingdom Hearts. JDDJS (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is criticism and most of the "Expectations" section speculation? That is the kind of information that is usually included in video game articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean about criticism. The expectation section is just what random people think might be in the game, which is not usually in articles. JDDJS (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you verified that these people are random, or have you made an assumption that the authors of the articles used random people instead of reliable secondary sources that have deemed the subject of "Kingdom Hearts III" to not only be notable enough to cover all discussion by the developers on it, to not only cover a number of rumours that have occurred frequently, but also providing their own comments on the potential contents of the game. Hell, even without the reception, it's still borderline notable by the factually true information in the History section and the coverage of rumours. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By random, I mean they are not developers and therefor are just guessing. And I'm still waiting for another case in which an article existed before the the topic was made official. If you can find another video game, a movie, a TV show, a book, a song or anything else that had its own article before it was announced, then I'll likely withdraw this nomination. JDDJS (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the "History" section? The game has been discussed multiple times by the developers, and even announced as having a 2012 date. The developers have confirmed a "Kingdom Hearts III" project as being in the works. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This Article has been up for deletion since the 13th and there is 6 keep votes and 2 delete votes, hasn't the consensus that it be kept been reached? King Curtis Gooden (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply - Discussions are normally open for 7 days, and AFD is not a vote. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Blake. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anyone saying "Keep per Blake" needs to address my rebuttal above. "Unverified speculation" doesn't mean "speculation that hasn't been verified to exist"; it means "speculation that hasn't been verified to be accurate".  Please note the difference.  Powers T 02:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Directly from WP:CRYSTAL "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. " --JDDJS (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL specifically states that expected events can be notable, if widely covered and with verified speculation. The very first line states this. And there is no speculation or rumour in the article, only discussion of notable rumours and speculation. KHIII is an anticipated title, and it is factually on the way. No padding to be found. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "And there is no speculation or rumour in the article, only discussion of notable rumours and speculation." -- Huh? How can you discuss notable rumors and speculation without including the speculation or rumor in the article?  Reporting that speculation exists is not "encyclopedic knowledge [that] can be verified".  Powers T 12:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what he is saying is that it doesn't say "fans think this might happen" but "we think this about the speculation." We are not covering the speculation, but covering the coverage of it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per users above me. The article is thoroughly referenced and its reliability is very high. UhOh STACK STACK STACK 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/118/1181920p1.html practically confirms that the game will be made, by revealing that it will be the last game Xehanort is in. Ajkseqawhj (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2011 (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.