Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King K. Rool (2nd nomination)

King K. Rool

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first AfD was correctly closed as merge & redirect. Per a new information application at DRV, consensus was to allow a subsequent AfD to consider this potential new information. Please see the close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 19 for more details. This is a procedural nomination and I offer no opinion. Daniel (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping participants from the original AfD, as per my DRV close: @Kung Fu Man, @Zxcvbnm, @Skynxnex, @Voorts, @Pokelego999 and closer @OwenX. Also pinging DRV applicant @Toadster101. This list of editors will receive a user talk page message to this effect also. Daniel (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for being blunt @Daniel:, but that was the worst deletion review close I've come across. I have absolutely no idea how you got that there was a consensus to relist the article at AfD based on that discussion. It needs to remain deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. There were good-faith editors moving forward the view that there was new information that should have been considered. That, combined with the fact that the significant editor wasn't notified and missed the opportunity to present this new information, means a further discussion is the best option to provide closure on the new information. If this debate again closes as 'merge and redirect', we will be better for having that affirmed in process following a conversation about the new information. Daniel (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The discussion at deletion review directly covered the new information which needed to be considered. This is needlessly extending the deletion procedure. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For the record, I had the opposite reaction. I thought this was well-considered and exactly the right thing to do. Discussing new sources at DRV for a recent AfD is tricky. Plus, frankly, the last discussion was really bad. Hopefully this one can be better. As we should, the keep side will supply sources and people can figure out what they think about them. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2: Electric Boogaloo The new sources haven't modified my opinion. IMO this shouldn't have gone through deletion review, I agree with SportingFlyer that it seems incomprehensible why it got relisted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge once more. There is nothing here indicating the notability thresholds are met, and my previous argument at both the previous AfD and deletion reviews still stands. Consensus at the deletion review did not seem to indicate a relist, so this relist seems unnecessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article itself is not in a great state (partly because of excessive linking to primary source videos of gameplay), the character of King K. Rool meets notability guidelines. There is coverage of the charcter in relatively conventional news media like Newsweek and Variety and in games journalism like Polygon. Outside of journalism, Todd Harper's "Fighting/Fat: Fighting Game Characters and the Emptiness of Video Game Fatness", Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports 1, no. 1 (2023), DOI:10.1123/jege.2022-0043 interprets the King K. Rool character as part of an analysis of aesthetics of fatness in gaming; and Chris Scullion's Jumping for Joy: The History of Platform Video Games (Pen & Sword Books, 2022) covers the character's role in the Donkey Kong Country franchise. This is sufficient to keep. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]