Lucky Chloe: Except for the Eurogamer piece, the half of that number that composes the reception section contains nothing of any substance.  No notable results found in a new search, just a bunch of tier rankings and listicle content from nonviable VG sources.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 20:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Lucky Chloe has at least three sources discussing her in a non-trivial way, all of which are already cited in the article.  The Eurogamer pieces, as you mention, plus the Den of Geek and IGN pieces also noting the divisiveness of the character.  And there's also this from ToonZone (now known as AnimeSuperhero ), but was removed on the claims of unreliability.  It has been discussed before, but discussion appear to be inconclusive.  I think another discussion of that site is in order.  Upon some Google searching, I also found this piece from Kotaku , which wasn't cited in the article, for some reason.  Overall, she fulfills the main purpose for notability , more so than the average Tekken character.  MoonJet ( talk ) 22:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ToonZone (AnimeSuperHero) is a fan-run unreliable source.  Trivial soundbites like "God I hate her already" and "Seems a little lazy" were taken from an unreliable source — a forum — to make a mountain out of a molehill; we're not exactly talking Jax's MK11 ending here.  Den of Geek is promoting a trailer and using YouTube comments to stir up "controversy" where there isn't any.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 03:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I or we know that Lucky Chloe have been discussed at bunch of reliable sources per WP:BEFORE and some of it were mentioned above, but most were just only one time event and people moved on.  There are no discussion about her since her reveal sadly.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 02:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:NOTTEMPORARY .  The fact she's had little coverage after the initial hoopla has no bearing on her notability.  MoonJet ( talk ) 08:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] *:: Weak Keep Changed my vote, due to additional sources that KFM provided below.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 13:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] CommentKeep Digitally Downloaded.net has two articles that offer some discussion, and while it's not much on its own, it does offer some thoughts when combined as they're by the same author.  Polygon mentioned the same thing Kotaku did, but brought it up again to segue into a discussion about sexist design in the franchise and Harada's approach to criticism.  Now you're probably wondering why I'm not voting Keep or even Weak Keep then.  Well...the problem is that after this things run out of steam, and whats in the above isn't much either.  There are some bits here and there (I particularly like this bit from Maddy Myers for The Mary Sue), but boiled down it's hard to feel there'd be a proper reception section to explain why she's important/notable enough for an article, especially when some of this overlaps.  There's a start, but I feel without more it's not enough to reach the finish line.  Based on the opinions of the other editors after I posted this, I feel more comfortable with a keep vote.  -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 07:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first DD article is a brief mention of the fan reaction, while the second is a generic listicle offering no original insight about the character.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 08:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not think this is true; the first source, while it covers the fan reaction, is also the author's reaction, and commentary about said reaction.  The second, while indeed in a list format, I would disagree, as it comments on her design being a better fit for Dead or Alive.  Not the most mindblowing stuff, but it's not nothing.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per the sources provided by Moonjet and Kung Fu Man.  Her divisive design elicited a lot of commentary from third parties.  There's enough content to warrant not merging.  Sergecross73 msg me 13:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I tried to come in with an open mind and read all the sources.  But even in the most lenient interpretation of notable, a few people complaining on NeoGAF does not indicate anything.  A single now-defunct message board does not represent the feelings of fans at large, putting the idea that there is a "controversy" in doubt.  Harada's views on critics belong in Harada's article or that of Tekken, perhaps in a "controversy" or "criticism" section.  I typically look for indepth character analysis, either of their gameplay or story relevance, rather than a flash-in-the-pan burst of backlash from a vocal minority.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  The coverage in the article appears to be trivial at best.  There's barely anything in terms of controversy or reception on her design beyond one or two articles, and overall appears to be a rather minor character.  That being said, there is some good stuff in here worth keeping, so a merge is warranted, in this case.  Has one ever considered Magneton?  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 17:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I feel as though it's on the weaker end; however, it has enough meat for me to say keep .  The negative reaction was strong enough to get an official response that was covered, which is not the most common.  I'd like to see more commentary that's divorced from the controversy, but I feel this has shown sustained notability at the end of the day.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge To clarify, looking at the article I thought there was more "meat" to it reception wise.  However, after cleaning it up, it's definitely less than bare bones.  While I'm all for a lower end of notability and discovering what that is, even with the sources I mentioned above you'd only get two more sentences, and with what's there it's just not enough. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 05:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I added a couple more sources that were brought up in here, and found one from Christian Today and Game Rant (before being purchased by Valnet, no less). I think there's more than enough here, especially when you consider that most Tekken characters don't get this kind of attention. MoonJet ( talk ) 07:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Moonjet, a lot of these are just saying the same thing and are primarily reactions to the initial event. The Kotaku ref isn't even being cited for that author's reception but the people online? And there is no way Christian Today is a reliable source from their About Us page alone...-- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 08:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I could have sworn I've seen Christian Today somewhere in a reliable source list.  Maybe I was thinking of a different Christian site.  The Kotaku source also gives reactions to what people say online, and goes beyond just simple recitings, so it's usable.  MoonJet ( talk ) 14:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge My original vote shall stay per above.  The article is already in weak state after it was cleaned up by another editor.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 07:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge The game is notable, Rjj iii ( talk ) 03:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What?  This AFD is not about a game, but a character.  And if you think they are notable, then why a merge?  MoonJet ( talk ) 13:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rjjiii - Are there some typos in your comment or something?  The subject isn't a game, and even if it was, that rationale doesn't make any sense for a merge stance.  I assume you meant to say something else?  Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The game Tekken 7 is notable, and the Tekken video game franchise is notable.  The character Lucky Chloe is not notable.  The reliable sources being used in the article are primarily about Tekken 7 and Tekken .  The content in the Lucky Chloe article is cited and should be preserved by merging it into articles where it can be presented in context.  [26] [27] @ MoonJet , Sergecross73 ,  and Beemer69 : hopefully that is more clear.  Regards, Rjj iii ( talk ) 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Kotaku source is more about Lucky Chloe than Tekken.  So is the Eurogamer source.  So is the Game Rant source I posted above.  Even most of the remaining sources still give a notable focus on the character.  Remember that GNG doesn't require the subject (in this case, Lucky Chloe) to be the main focus of the article, necessarily.  MoonJet ( talk ) 04:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Only Kotaku and EG actually go into depth about this issue.  Game Rant digs up the same weak message board quotes ("One user described it as 'a little lazy', while another asked 'what is that abomination'.") That's not controversial as gamers are notoriously impossible to please, but Harada knew that any publicity helps and he ran with it.  But in the end, it hasn't made her an A-lister in the Tekken franchise.  sixty nine • whaddya want?  • 06:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even just those two sources are arguably enough, at least with the other sources supplemented.  The other sources listed, while maybe not as good as those two, I wouldn't call them "trivial mentions" either.  MoonJet ( talk ) 08:26, 7 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: merge