Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klefki


 * 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 List of generation VI Pokémon. This ultimately comes down to determining where the article sits against SIGCOV/GNG, and the consensus in this debate is that it does not meet the threshold. Editors can merge content from behind the redirect at their discretion. Daniel (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Klefki

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable Pokemon, fails WP:GNG. Reception section has been WP:REFBOMBed with many, non-significant sources and listicles that do not indicate notability. There is no substantive discussion of the Pokemon beyond a couple of Kotaku articles near its release, but it is clear the notability was not enduring and it was not mentioned later. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon, zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Click Google news and you see ample results for this. Its not just brief mentions on list pages.  Long articles have been written about it such as https://www.republicworld.com/technology-news/gaming/pokemon-go-klefki-how-to-catch-klefki-a-clear-step-by-step-guide.html https://kotaku.com/klefki-will-steal-your-keys-and-never-give-them-back-1836710679 https://www.thegamer.com/pokemon-sword-shield-how-to-find-klefki/   D r e a m Focus  23:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Step by step guides on how to catch a Pokemon are not indicative of notability and would be dubious to be used as references.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE discussed what Wikipedia should cover. I don't believe it discusses what sources may be used. NemesisAT (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is the natural implication. After all, the only information that can usually be gleaned from game guides is instructions on how to play the game. It's rarely an example of significant coverage or goes indepth into the topic in a critical light.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Of the sources Dream Focus brought up, only the Kotaku one is helpful to demonstrate notability. The others are purely gameguide writeups with no developmental or critical insight. When analyzed in conjunction with the other non-trivial but less-then-significant coverage by numerous sources cited in the article, the aggregate coverage scrapes the threshold of WP:GNG for me. Haleth (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of non-trivial coverage of the Pokemon exists, both as an individual and in lists. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Coverage in lists is trivial coverage. The list is not about the Pokemon, specifically. I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with 3 non trivial sources. Otherwise this is just WP:SOURCESEXIST.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Im certain that having this source here https://kotaku.com/klefki-will-steal-your-keys-and-never-give-them-back-1836710679 https://kotaku.com/the-best-and-possibly-worst-of-the-new-pokemon-design-1445718269 https://www.destructoid.com/klefki-is-a-pokemon-that-is-a-key-ring-it-is-a-key-ring/ passes notability. 180.194.138.13 (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Destructoid source is only one paragraph, it is not WP:SIGCOV and has no substantial commentary at all (it is just restating its Pokedex entry).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to the List of generation VI Pokémon since the entries in the Reception section may not be suitable to prove notability and impact in the real world. We can move the few notable references to add to its entry in the list, and remove the rest. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  21:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon. This is a shining example of where "counting sources" for notability falls flat. Where is the substance? In each of the above sources, the article is either itself an attempt at humor, a passing mention, or game guide material (how to do X in a game). With what overabundance of sourcing are we going to write an entire encyclopedia article that does justice to this topic? All we can extract from this content is a series of unserious quotes from a glut of clickbait that we could string together into a very lackluster Reception paragraph. There is enough video game journalism coverage that we can afford a modicum of discernment that, "Every Pokemon is interesting and worth talking about. I don’t play a ton of Pokemon, but I do enjoy the universe and I love learning more about the creatures in it. So, Here’s Another Pokemon! It’s Klefki!" is an admission of randomness, not of the topic's independent notability. If all readers need to know about this character is that journalists think it's a joke, that's a single sentence to cite within the existing list's notes section (as has already been done). czar  09:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel that using that source in the way that you did was dishonest; if anyone were to read your message, they would assume that this source was used for notability, but it is not used to do that at all. The only thing the source is used to do is to source a piece of information. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ? It was cited for notability in the first "keep" comment above or I wouldn't have mentioned it. czar  18:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, divorced from that comment, it just seemed like a jab at the article/author. Apologies. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of generation VI Pokémon. A bit better than many others, but hardly inspiring, low quality blog-like jokes, rants, plus the usual game guides and some passing mentions. Still, I'd strongly advise merge over a simple redirect; some content can enrich the target list whose entry is as often not much more than plot summary; merging reception there would be a win-win IMHO. Ps. That said, in this case the list already contains most relevant info, but we can probably find a sentence of two to add. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Transwiki game guide style content to Pokémon/Pokédex/Klefki --Mbrickn (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon. I was primarily convinced by Czar's comments. The actual coverage on this Pokémon is rather limited and can be contained to the target list. I am suggesting a redirect rather than a merge as the list already has information about the Pokémon with citations included so I do not think there is really much to actually merge over there. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon - The sources presented here that are not just straight out game guides are largely very short articles merely mentioning the novelty of this Pokemon's silly design which can not be considered significant coverage. Even the one Kotaku article that has been argued counts as significant coverage barely has any real content once you take out all the obvious jokes, and even that is just them copying facts from the in-game Pokedexes.  Even if one were to consider the many stub articles that criticize its design as actual coverage, they could basically be used to cover the single fact that "many people were critical of this Pokemon's design" which could be easily mentioned on the main VI Gen Pokemon list without requiring a separate article.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The reception is big and broad in coverage. Let's see whether we can fix it in that List of generation VI Pokémon. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect. The alleged significant coverage linked to above is unbelieveable. Geschichte (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect Same reasoning as the other votes. Lack of significant coverage. Sources are repeating the same surface level commentary over and over and over. Summarize. The target for the redirect needs the same fat trimming too, btw. TarkusAB talk / contrib 15:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon. Admittedly, I was considering leaning Keep, but I do have to unfortunately agree with others that a lot of the sources are simply game guides and/or do not give the WP:SIGCOV needed to count towards WP:GNG. Link20XX (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge as compromise. Only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS and not enough reliable sources for WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as i see no consensus yet. Even after the relisting, most of the comments are looking like just votes. SIGCOV, GNG, and the same repetitions. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2021 (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.