Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Kingdom Hearts/archive2

Kingdom Hearts edit

I'm nominating this topic because the quality of the separate articles has been found to be compromised. Specifically, the sourcing of Universe of Kingdom Hearts has been deemed insufficient, and the remaining article share the same deficiency because they use similar sources. As such, one article currently does not meet Criteria 3 (Each article is of high quality, including the referencing) and more will be sure to follow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - the Universe article was only delisted today, so technically this topic has until 29 December until it needs to be delisted, but as the author of this topic, if you feel that the problems with it are insurmountable, then I'm not going to oppose the topic being delisted sooner. Which other articles do you reckon may be delisted/demoted due to the sourcing concerns? rst20xx (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, this topic should be called "Kingdom Hearts series", in terms of page names and title parameter, as is custom, and as is reflected in the piped lead article - rst20xx (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still going through the articles to determine to what extent each article will be affected, but I know each article, save for the media list, relied heavily on the same group of sources for their respective development sections. User:Axem Titanium and I were unable to find the information to properly cite the sources. Music of Kingdom Hearts might still meet GA criteria, but I don't see much hope for the others. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

So you don't think proper replacement sources could be found within the next 3 months? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. We did not find the sources in a month of searching for Universe of Kingdom Hearts. Axem even tried emailing operators of some Kingdom Hearts fan sites, but turned up nothing. Searching English and Japanese sites turned up nothing on my end too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Can't the artcle be merged? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would solve the problem, if other articles are likely to be delisted/demoted also - rst20xx (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is not eligible for removal. A retention period of three months is required. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I appreciate the zeal to keep high standards, but the articles must first be shown to be deficient, and only one has so far. Organization 13 was reviewed and kept its status, and it is no sure thing they will all fall like dominos. Like I said before, it still looks like a case of one article that needs to be merged to the series article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I've seen this coming for some time now. I know for a fact the interview translations from the Kingdom Hearts fansites would not pass mustard at a current FAC. And all five of the FAs use them as sources. The only one that looks like it could survive the trimming of the sources is Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories. Even then I'd call it a toss up.
  If others want to take the time to do more searching, I certainly won't stand in the way. But I've searched as best I can and turned up nothing. The rest of the articles still have their quality badges, but I know they don't meet current criteria. Once the E.T. GAR is finished and I complete some other obligations I'm catching up on, I plan on taking some of the articles to FAR and GAR. I'm certain that several will lose their status. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  - So these fansite interviews... can you not track down the original sources? Have you tried contacting the fansites about this? With regards to the Universe article, I really feel it deserves to exist, because this is an ongoing franchise, all the Final Fantasy games post-VII have an article (two of which are GAs) and the KH universe is comparably notable, if not more so, as it has appeared in several games. Further, if several articles are possibly going to be delisted, unless the translations are re-sourced, then merging wouldn't solve anything - better to try and re-source - rst20xx (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Axem Titanium contacted them and they either didn't reply or said they didn't have the original source. I went searching through forums trying to find the original postings and did wide google searches of English and Japanese sites a number of times. I'm not saying we did the most extensive, thorough search ever conducted, but we made a very good effort. Maybe others could have more luck. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Unfortunately, Guy is right. We experienced the same issue in Final Fantasy X's GAR, and we were forced to remove a lot of good content because it came from an unreliable source, and we weren't able to track down the Famitsu magazine which was the original source. I believe some other Final Fantasy articles use the same source (http://flaregamer.com/), e.g. FF8#Development, and they may also be delisted because a lot of the development information is from that source. The Prince (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also worth pointing out that Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days was released in North America on September 29, and hence needs to be a GA by December 29 (just like the Universe article!) rst20xx (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That one might be possible to get to GA. But I haven't done a real search for development info. It currently uses some fansite translations and a number of well meaning fans have littered the article with citations to forums and image galleries. At least they're adding citations now. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Close as demote - While we have two keep votes here, and no delist votes, I am going to demote this, as the purpose of retention periods is to give the author of the topic time to bring articles up to GA/FL, if they get delisted or come out of retention. Hence, if the author nominates a topic for demotion themselves, then this says to me that the topic won't be back up to standards come the end of retention. This belief is strengthened by the statements that several more articles may be demoted/delisted shortly. Anyway, I hope you are able to eventually get round the sourcing issues, because this is otherwise a very good topic, and it's sad to see it go - rst20xx (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]