Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Hearts III (3rd 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

I nominated this article 8 months ago, and since there has been virtually no changes in it since then, I am nominating it again. This article is all rumors and speculation, which is a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. There is still no confirmation that this game is even going to be created. The Kingdom Hearts Wikia doesn't even have an article for this. If Kingdom Hearts III does ever come out, the only section from this article that would even still be in it is the history section. JDDJS (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. This has been deleted several times and nothing has changed. It's still nothing but speculation. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Salt - if, like you say "nothing has changed" and yet created, why not speedy as CSD G4 - "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion"? Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 00:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Salt? Good grief in heaven. Will you be the one to contact the developers, then, once they get around to announcing them, and tell them they cannot make this game because it would not jibe with the lackadaisical editing schedules of WP editors?
 * Furthermore, while the future contributions of WP editors and the opining experts themselves may or may not turn out to have a correlation with their past lack of contributions, we WP editors can no more say so with certainty than we can say when the game is coming out. Anarchangel (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Regardless of whether or not the game's ever released, it still get's substantial coverage in reliable, third party sources. Look at Chrono Break. 11 years later, and still nothing more than a trademark. And yet, it was brought to good article status. Same applies here. Sergecross73   msg me   03:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also, as was brought up in the last AFD, which ended in "Keep", was coverage from IGN, a reliable source which contains information from the game's creator, which clearly discusses a Kingdom Hearts 3 by name. (http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/118/1181920p1.html) So it's not like it's some phantom game thought up by fans; the company clearly acknowledges its existence. Sergecross73   msg me   03:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per a refinement of wording of Blake's reasoning in the second nomination. We could discuss whether speculation should be allowed in Wikipedia all day. Luckily, others already have, and the cut-off is "unverified speculation". Speculation by editors is not allowed; speculation informed opinion by a consensus of reliable third party sources is the definition of the majority of Wikipedia's content. The article contains no speculation by WP editors about future events, and so CRYSTAL does not apply.
 * Yes, there are virtually no changes. That would be a reason to delete if there were any mention whatever of change requirements in the closer's statement. The article by this name has only been deleted once; despite a blizzard of 'Keep' rationales, the second nomination was held open for eight days. The first nomination was closed 'Delete' after only five days and three votes.
 * To dispel any lingering doubts in the uninformed about the notability of Kingdom Hearts: it is wildly popular, with handfuls of spinoffs. Quite the contrary; the reason for its delayed release is actually the opposite of being non-notable. The Kingdom Hearts franchise is being milked for every last dime; they'll bring this out once they have extracted the maximum out of fans waiting for KH III. Does not really matter when that is; its release is a foregone conclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Directly from WP:CRYSTAL, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." and that all that the article is. JDDJS (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read that "History" section? None of that is speculation. It's all info from developers, reported on by reliable sources. That's the part that really makes it meet the WP:GNG, which trumps your WP:CRYSTAL concerns. Sergecross73   msg me   20:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I have retracted my statement, which was rhetorically strong but factually weak to your good scholarship, and revised it, so my argument still stands. I believe that the sentence you quoted was not intended to remove from WP the informed opinion of experts on the subject. Anarchangel (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The history section cab easily be added to Kingdom Hearts. JDDJS (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's clearly enough for a stand-alone article here. That part of CRYSTAL you quoted says that an article can't be based entirely on speculation. But it's not; there's the reliably sourced history section. Beyond that, CRYSTAL does not keep speculation off of articles altogether; speculation is fine if it is sourced and represented as speculation and not fact, which is exactly how I'd describe the speculation in this article.
 * Short version: The History section alone helps it meet the GNG, and the amount of sourced speculation provides enough verifiable content to warrant it it's own article. Sergecross73   msg me   20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep due to a lot of the reasons the others have stated. There's enough evidence that the series will happen. And unlike Chrono Break which also has an article, it will be published in the next few years. That makes it relevant enough to let it stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.111.188 (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:CRYSTAL only applies when it cannot be verified and has not coverage by WP:RS - not the case here. Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 00:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article could be kept just on the History and Expectations sections alone. Just because 1 of the sections has speculation doesn't mean the whole article is speculation. And stated before, speculation is allowed in certain circumstances if it is sourced, which it is. Overall, this article informs readers, and without it, they would be attacking the talkpages of other articles in the series with questions about it. I don't see why you would want to remove an article that informs readers of so much. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it's pretty much all been said. The article isn't speculation, it's well-sourced statements from the developers themselves, they just don't happen to be sharing solid information on a lot of stuff one would want (such as dates, etc).  It doesn't matter what a KH wiki says, it certainly doesn't matter if people want to re-nominate articles for deletion or propose salting the topic (to that: seriously?  is that a reflexive response on your part, or do you want to actually come up with a valid rational for that statement?). Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2012 (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.