Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of worlds in the Kingdom Hearts series


 * 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   redirect to Universe of Kingdom Hearts. Deleted as a content fork, then redirected Shimeru (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

List of worlds in the Kingdom Hearts series

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article duplicates content in the delisted GA Universe of Kingdom Hearts. Content similar to the lengthy list of worlds was removed from the Universe article to comply with quality standards brought during the GAR, which ended in September 2009. In November 2009, this page was expanded from a redirect to a list which included almost identical content to the Universe article. I believe the page should be deleted because the title is not a likely search term and the article is primarily linked to other articles via Template:Kingdom Hearts series. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Guyinblack25 talk 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, this is definitely FANCRUFT previously CFORK from Universe article. It's good fancruft, but fancruft nevertheless. It's like Organizations in Deus Ex or whatnot. I recognise the worlds do not inherit notability from the game. It's a week and moot point, but I rather that fans are happy on this page than tangle Universe page. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Universe page can be maintained if need be. But when content gets forked like this, it's more difficult to handle. Either way, content forks are discouraged per Content forking. The development and reception is almost identical to that of the Universe article. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete after review. No stand-alone notability past the duplicated material. Re: I know it's cfork, that's why I said my point was moot. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as inappropriate content fork duplicating another article with a the addition of information taken entirely from WP:GAMEGUIDEs. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful info into the original article, but delete here. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, most of the info is fancruft, and would require significant effort to be placed in the main article. Unless somebody volunteers, the info will be deleted without a merge. — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Any content that could be kept, is already in the Universe article almost word for word, hence the content forking. All that's left is the actual list of the worlds, which I believe should be deleted. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep: the info can still be useful.Fractyl (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * However, useful to a very small crowd and not a general reader. This is why there are specialist wikis. — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing is a general reader. You only read articles for things you are interested in, and won't even find your way here if you weren't looking for it.   D r e a m Focus  23:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but that is besides the point. Such excess detail is unless to the layman, which is the audience we write for. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Strong Delete per Guyinblack25's reasoning and also the information is taken from game guides per What Wikipedia is not. No notability has been established and they have no reliable sources to cover this article, so I think this article should be deleted no matter the cost. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, per above. The fork was created without discussion and should not have been made in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: A worlds list is perfectly fine. - Donald Duck (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An article either conforms or does not conform with WP guidelines. Being "fine" is not really an objective argument. — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It helps to better understand the series itself, and thus is quite encyclopedic. Anyone wishing to learn about a bestselling insanely successful series, should be able to read about it, and all notable aspects of it, that including character list, enemies list, and list of worlds.   D r e a m Focus  23:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When clicking the link up top that searches through all the sites deemed as reliable sources for video game related things, I find an IGN article right away which list the worlds.  The worlds are talked about there.  So they get coverage.  Many other things appear in the search, but I don't see the need to look through all of them, there enough reason already to convince me this is notable.  Look around here  if you want to find more sources.  Perhaps even search for individual worlds that get mentioned at various places in detail.   D r e a m Focus  23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to disagree with the idea that all aspects of the series should be "listed" out here on Wikipedia. Several other game guide sites already provide such content. Also, a search engine test by itself is not enough to establish notability. Searching through the first page of the Google search did not turn up much. Only two pages actually list any worlds, briefly in my opinion. A small section are user pages that do not satisfy WP:RS. A bulk of the others are IGN pages with a forum link at the bottom of the pages that includes "worlds" in the title. Regardless, none of this does not address addresses the content forking. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)) — grammar edit to my comment (Guyinblack25 talk 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete-as mentioned above, this is a pointless content fork. The sources provided are either material from the works themselves, or are unreliable things like blogs, and Guyinblack's analysis of the claimed Google sources is spot on. Reyk  YO!  08:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Preserve the article seems to have alot of information and content forking doesn't sound like a bad idea, i'm sure this specific reception of the worlds in kingdom hearts.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is currently in the "Reception" section is about all I turned up during the initial quality push a few years back. There is very little about specific worlds, and what is available is generalized. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete but not before merging some of the developer bits into the appropriate game or series articles. A list of worlds in a game is generally WP:GAMEGUIDE, and most of the entries here are just talking about the worlds in-universe.  There is some useful information that can be rescued, but not the full list; alternatively, because these reference certain Disney films, a table in the series articles to list the worlds and movies borrowed from would be appropriate. --M ASEM  (t) 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A suitable expansion of the section of the universe article--at least, it will be suitable when condensed a little, but more than the single paragraph in the main article is necessary DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The same content was removed from Universe of Kingdom Hearts during its GAR because of quality concerns. If it wouldn't pass GA, why should it be fine to stick around as a Start-class list? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete and Transwiki to article at Disney Wikia. References or no, this ends up being WP:GAMECRUFT. The mentions to particular worlds are mostly trivial, with reliable sources providing insignificant coverage for any given location.  Most worlds have a passing mention at best in the references.  Also fails WP:GAMEGUIDE.  For instance, Mario (series) has one paragraph for the entire Mushroom Kingdom.  I'm not saying it needs to be that small, but the amount of content in Universe of Kingdom Hearts gives the reader plenty.  We don't need a comprehensive list of worlds each with a 1-2 paragraph blurb.  That's exactly what a strategy guide is for. --Teancum (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The first and last sections are very general info about the game series, and are covered elsewhere. I think the level of detail in the rest of the article is too great and could be cut down to a few lines per world and merged with the individual game articles. JokerWylde (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately the article does not have enough content to justify itself. Though arguably it plays a similar role as the Characters of Kingdom Hearts page for worlds.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Universe of Kingdom Hearts - I checked what Guyinblack25 said and the reception section of this article is entirely copied from the other article. This is nothing but a content fork that crams in a ton of WP:GAMEGUIDE info. Keep the other article and delete this fork. Arskwad (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2010 (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.