Klefki: Both of the Kotaku articles are written in a heavily blog-style way, which WP:VG/S warns about: "editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance".  (One example of the tone: "Meanwhile, you look back at, like, the original 3 starters and they're just a bunch of turtles. Turtles! Dude. C'mon.")  It borders on the nonsensical.  Therefore I think the previous discussion result still applies 3 years later.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Video games .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I find the argument of "the tone is too unserious" (strong paraphrasing) very rarely applied to this degree, and I would argue that it most definitely does not apply here.  The example used at WP:VG/S is this: [23] Specifically, the discussion here is where the consensus came from, where a user argues "My only concern is that Kotaku will also still run geek'ed out articles (eg, anything tagged "fanart" for example)".  Rather than this article being an attempt to ignore the previous AfD, I feel that this AfD's argument is an attempt to ignore the context behind the discussion in order to get an article deleted that you personally feel does not suit GNG.  From an article that was AfD'd in the past, Deathclaw , is this source, which you used and defended : [24] I would contend that this runs afoul of the consensus on Kotaku's use, where the author is just reposting stuff about a mod, as opposed to the source you take issue with, where the author gives their own opinion on the subject.  As an aside, you have been around enough that you should understand that it is appropriate to notify all editors that would reasonably expect to be notified as part of this AfD.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 16:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment While I'm not going to vote on this particular article as of yet, I am going to comment on the nominator's particularly aggressive tone as being a bit much, and while I'm assuming good faith I feel saying stuff like "this feels like an attempt to ignore the previous deletion discussion in 2021" is not.  Additionally I feel that bringing up the previous AfD is a bit unfair, as comparing the two articles there has been significant improvement, while the heavy focus on the previous AfD in the nomination gives the indication "it's just the same article". -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional comment Expanding on this, the primary argument in the above, that this article by Patricia Hernandez is a "geeky blog post", it provides three things to the subject in question: an examination of the character, a statement regarding it's popularity and her reaction to that, and an examination of it in a broader real world sense both compared to other designs in the series and folklore. While there's definitely a "tongue in cheek" element of some of the commentary, nonetheless she is making a comparison, and Zx you yourself have argued for outright significantly tongue in cheek sources from this publication in other AfD discussions. A consistent mindset given the frequency of your nominations would be nice.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Honestly, I'd say this is a more concerning example of gaming the system .  I would agree that the Sigma source is fine, but the fact that Zx regards it as acceptable despite being significantly more tongue in cheek makes me feel that he is arbitrarily applying consensus on Kotaku in this case depending on whether he opposes or supports deletion, which is an extremely serious issue with an AfD nomination.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think it's pretty clear there is nothing arbitrary about my deletion nominations, which is a big insinuation.  In Sigma's case, the article isn't dependent on that source to prove notability.  In the case of Klefki, those are arguably the only reliable sources mentioning Klefki in a significant way that could count towards notability.  NME is a simple announcement; TheGamer is about object Pokemon in general, a discrete subject.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Zx you used one half joking comment about turtles in the light of simplistic design to discredit a whole article but somehow argument an article built around "these two characters are named Sigma, let's compare them" as an article you argued for as a valid source.  Can you reasonably not see a problem there? -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 01:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that claiming that an editor ignored a prior AfD is a big insinuation.  Additionally, if this was the only example, maybe you would have a point, but as has been shown, you do have a pattern of defending geeky blog posts from Kotaku.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 02:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Given the massive amount of pop-culture references in Overwatch, including retro video games, comparing Sigma to Sigma is not necessarily as goofy as it appears, despite your arguments it is essentially the same and I am a  hypocrite.  And my problem was not just that the turtles comment was humorous, it's just outright ludicrous.  Charmander is a lizard; you have to squint really, really hard to even see Bulbasaur as somewhat being similar to a turtle.  It doesn't bode well for the author who wrote it.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I had a long write-up about the fact that you're impugning the writer based on a factual inaccuracy (I can't imagine how few sources would be usable if we held all authors to this standard), but I think I'll save it, because the fact that you're honestly framing the Overwatch article as not being very tongue-in-cheek is absolutely shocking.  The author literally frames it as an investigation of if they're the same person, a framing that is patently absurd if you were presenting it seriously.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - There seems a lot of comment here on the nom. , but what is important is the sources.  Looking at these sources, many are clearly primary, so could someone suggest the WP:THREE best sources you would like me to take a look at.  Thanks.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are what I would consider the strongest sources: [25] [26] [27] [28] - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is also this source , where the interviewer asks about its creation, with the implication being that the question came about as a result of the negative reception.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 18:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep On top of what was there before, there have been several more sources added to the article since.  I'd say that it's more than enough to justify Klefki's existence.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon#Klefki - Asked for WP:THREE and got five.  Let's look at them.  [29] is Kotaku , a gamer news site although also described as a blog.  Despite being a blog, it appears to have editorial oversight and can be given a pass on reliability.  But the review opens with "...new Pokémon designs... are they any good?"  This then is a WP:PRIMARY source and primary sources do not count towards notability.  Per WP:GNG , sources should be secondary.  The fact that some new thing is written about in specialist review sites that write on the subject when it is new tells us nothing about notability, and neither can this be considered sustained coverage.  So that one won't do.  [30] is also Kotaku.  The writer is different and not an editor, but the same comments apply.  Primary sourcing.  So what of the others?  [31] has "Fans have discovered that ‘Pokémon Klefki’ is available in multiple regions".  This is also primary, in a generally reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources .  Then we have [32] .  This one is, at least, speaking about a subject and concept.  It is talking about "Object Pokemon".  Klefki is not the subject of the article but mentioned as an example of Object Pokemon.  This article might be some evidence for an article on the class of Pokemon that are objects, and Klefki would be a valid redirect there, but it does not contain significant coverage of Klefki itself.  Finally [33] starts off with "The latest core entry in the Pokémon franchise is the biggest step forward the series has taken in many years."  This sounds good, but actually it is not talking about Klefki.  Klefki just gets passing mention as part of a discussion of improvements.  Additionally this is another primary source.  So, in short, there is nothing here that speaks to an enduring notability of Klefki as a subject in itself.  Pokemon is notable but notability is not inherited.  Nothing in these sources shows why Klefki as a concept or character is independently notable of Pokemon.  I would happily consider an alternative redirect if there were a notable object pokemon subject page.  I can't find one though, so the original redirect as an outcome of the first AFD appears correct.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 09:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not in agreement that Kotaku is a primary source.  Neither of their articles are written by or hosted on sources directly involved or close to an event.  The policy says "insider," and the examples are a scientist's comments of their own results and a first-hand eye witness comment, neither of which could be comparable to critic commentary on a subject.  What part of this section of policy are you arguing Kotaku fits under?  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 09:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you may be confusing independence with primary sourcing.  If someone writes about some new thing when it is new and because it is new, it is a primary source.  Have a read of WP:PRIMARY and also WP:PRIMARYNEWS .  Note, however, what PRIMARYNEWS says about book reviews.  That is why I gave more weight to [34] - but as I pointed out, the secondary coverage there was on the concept of object pokemon, and not Klefki.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 10:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, the argument that it was written about because it was new does not apply to the second Kotaku article, which was written six years after the release of its game of origin.  Secondly, I would contend that the first Kotaku citation is an example of a "book review."  It may have been written as a response to X and Y's newness, but it's also in-depth commentary by the author of an aspect of the game.  Looking at WP:SECONDARY , the article fits this much better: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."  In the example, it suggests a military historian's talk about the life experiences of their own experiences as an example where a secondary source may be a primary source.  In this case, the author is providing "analysis, evaluation, interpretation" and "synthesis of the facts," rather than being used to recount anything about herself.  I strongly disagree with this interpretation of primary and secondary sourcing.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 10:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Are we talking about the same article?  The Kotaku article is primary.  Ask yourself, what is it in that article that suggests Klefki is an independently notable thing?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that the author elected to go into significant detail about it.  Or, more on the nose, the fact that the author describes Klefki as a notable Pokemon, and says so in such a way that makes clear that it stands out from most other Pokemon.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 12:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It says it is notable for being ridiculous.  But that is not WP:N that is the opinion of the author writing in a primary source as to why, at the time of introduction, this was getting attention.  I have spent quite a bit of time looking at what you selected as the five best sources, and I think I have said all that needs saying on these.  My view above stands.  I'll leave it there, thanks.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No strong opinion on whether this article should be spun out, but I don't think this (Sirfurboy's interpretation) is the standard interpretation of WP:PRIMARY as it applies to notability-conferring sources.  Reviews contain primary information on the opinions of the reviewer, but secondary information on the thing under review.  See the footnote in the cited guideline, saying that reviews are evidence of notability: Having multiple coverages in book reviews is considered one of the notability criteria for books; book reviews should be considered as supporting sources in articles about books.  ~ A412 talk!  19:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I both linked to PRIMARYNEWS and signalled what it said about how a book review can be secondary, and by analogy, why one of the above can be understood to be secondary.  I also pointed out why the others are primary.  An article starting "...new Pokémon designs... are they any good?" is primary.  Books can be deemed notable provided they have suitable reviews, yes.  But this is not a comparable particular.  We are not talking about a game (analagous to a book) but to a specific character, and thus comparable to a book character.  The notability guideline for books (NBOOKS) is not analagous.  We are looking at WP:GNG here.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 20:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not drawing the analogies to book reviews because I think NBOOKS is analogous to video game characters, I'm citing them because I don't think your position reflects consensus on whether review pieces on newly released things are primary, which by my reading, they are not.  This time from PRIMARYNEWS: "Book reviews are generally secondary sources if they provide information beyond a basic description of the book's contents".  Perhaps we disagree whether the Kotaku source does "provide information beyond a basic description", but I think it clearly does.  ~ A412 talk!  21:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That is exactly what I highlighted when I said Note, however, what PRIMARYNEWS says about book reviews.  That is why I gave more weight to [12] .  So yes, if you think a review of whats new Pokemon designs that describes one called Klefki, with a basic description of what Klefki is is a secondary source, then we are very much in disagreement about what constitutes a secondary source.  The review is this one [35] .  It is all description and no analysis.  This is someone describing a new character in a game.  No analysis.  It is reporting.  It is a primary source.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 21:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The author analyzed its possible origins.  The concept that Klefki is a tsukumogami is an original concept proposed by her, as a response to the discourse over whether Klefki was an unoriginal design.  Hernandez does not report, for example, that Klefki is a more interesting design than the original starters.  This is all clearly analysis.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just another editor chiming in that, while I can see varying arguments on whether or not its significant coverage, the claim that Kotaku is somehow a primary source for a Pokemon is way, way off.  Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The piece is literally reporting on the latest Pokemon characters and describing what has been released.  Please take a look at WP:PRIMARYNEWS .  In what way is that secondary?  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The question was answered previously, I do not know why you have not responded.  Once again, the notion that Klefki is a tsukumogami is NOT "describing what has been released," it is an original analysis of the subject.  I have no earthly idea why you are holding this position, but I worry that you are drastically misunderstanding what the source says.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 19:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Have you read this whole discussion?  Your assertion is widely (unanimously even?) being rejected as incorrect.  This is not a news event, it's a fictional character.  If Nintendo or Pokemon Company -the subject's creator - were writing the article on their website, it would be primary coverage.  Or if Kotaku were just reposting a Nintendo press release, it would be primary.  But Kotaku's own writing on Pokemon is not primary, as they have no actual connection with the subject.  Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a news event, it's a fictional character.  And this is why I pointed to what PRIMARYNEWS says about book reviews, reviews of works of fiction.  Book reviews are secondary when they provide information beyond a basic description of the book's contents.  Book reviews are often a mix of primary and secondary material .  We don't seem to provide an academic discussion of sourcing of Pokemon characters, but this is making the exact and comparable point about fictional characters.  And for the level of review that one expects to find to show the notability of a fictional character, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savely Govorkov .  As the review in question about the new pokemon character is just a description of the pokemon a report that people are talking about it, more description of its battle prowess, and sandwiched in all that, 4 words that might pass for analysis: "it's kind of ridiculous," this is a primary source.  I am not saying all reviews are primary.  I specifically said the opposite from the start.  I am saying this one, based on its content and its proximity to the release, contains no secondary analysis (unless you want to credit "its kind of ridiculous").  It is reporting of something that is new.  It is a primary source.  I am entirely unconcerned that people may be disagreeing with my view here.  The simple fact of the matter is there is no secondary analysis in that article.  It is not a secondary source.  Further, the lack of connection with the subject you mention is a red herring here.  That makes this independent and sources also have to be independent, but see, for instance, WP:Secondary does not mean independent .  It must be secondary and independent.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 21:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry, but I don't believe your application, or the bar you've set is consistent with common community interpretation.  Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with Sergecross wholeheartedly here.  Judging by unanimous opinion that the argument is very strange, I'm encouraging you to consider that your own interpretation of what a primary source is may be incorrect.  You also seem to have completely misunderstood the contents of the article, given that, once again, the article at multiple points discusses the character in terms and ideas not inherent or official to the character.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 22:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry to jump in, but I'd like to point out that all of this back-and-forth is going to make it harder for the closer to make a determination.  Everybody has made their point by now, and in my opinion, it's best if we let other people consider what's here, look at the article, and make their own judgment.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 22:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think we're still okay, as we're still trending pretty strongly towards "keep" at the moment, but I don't plan on commenting further regardless.  Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I largely agree with Cukie Gherkin that this is not the same article that was merged three years ago, and that these are not primary sources.  The "strongest sources" that Cukie provided in here (particularly, both Kotaku sources and the Game Informer source) show that Klefki has enough notability for a standalone article, as does the Screen Rant source cited in the article, and possibly more.  MoonJet ( talk ) 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The Kotaku review that's under discussion ( [36] ) seems reasonably strong to me.  It is clearly commentary and not just description.  I am not convinced by Sirfurboy's argument that apparently everything in the world is primary, and I am not convinced by the nominator's argument that the review should be discounted because it contains a silly sentence.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 23:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm going to be honest, I was surprised this got made at first because I had tried to make an article for either of the well loathed object mons of gen 5, but there wasn't anything as biting.  But I was even more surprised when I did check the sources and I feel this article is more than justified due to the commentary for Klefki.  I think what would set this article apart from other "object pokemon" is that whilst yes it features in listicles here, it also has the articles about this pokemon specifically, which I can't really say for a pokemon like Vanillish.   Especially the Kotaku source, which as Touchpigs has mentioned above, seems quite in-depth in terms of commentary, even if slightly blog like.  These sources I do not believe to be primary at all, that's not how I would ever view an article like this before at all.  That is all, Captain Galaxy 00:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : While there is a lot of commentary on the "object" Pokemon from this generation of Pokemon games, particularity stuff like the ice cream or garbage bag and whatnot, I feel Klefki stands out a bit for how much commentary there was, but also because the criticism reached so much it resulted in a question directed towards Sugimori.  I feel that shows some degree of real world impact, albeit how light, and Klefki works as an example of contrasting the later generations of Pokemon to their earlier counterparts, even if it is a "Death by 1000 cuts" situation. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 23:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I don't think it's a "home run" for notability, but per my and others comments above, I think it's it enough to clear the minimum bar of the GNG, and like others, reject the notion of some of the third party sourcing like Kotaku being a primary source.  Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I didn't record a bolded vote earlier, but per my rationale in my threaded comment that Kotaku, and other sources, represent independent secondary sources (even if I'm not thrilled with the quality of said sources).  ~ A412 talk!  07:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources presented makes Klefki meet WP:GNG .  The Kotaku source is obviously secondary and independent.  Skyshifter talk 12:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: keep