That isn't entirely true; many, such as myself, support Bandanna Dee as he is a prominent character to the series. In fact, I am far more concerned with the longevity the character has endured than ANY playable appearance. His move-set potential offers something entirely diverse, I don't want Waddle Dee because he is important, I want Waddle Dee because I enjoy the character, he is the ONLY Kirby character that I adore. His weapon alone gives him an essence of uniqueness. I do agree with your sentiment though, there are supporters of Waddle Dee just because he is next-in-line, but that doesn't alter any of his merits. He fits in the Smash universe and while Kirby isn't the most iconic Nintendo franchise, it is certainly prevalent and Sakurai is closely associated with the series.
That is why I amended my point to say the main reason he has support, not the sole reason. This is how popularity trends go; there are always those that support the character because they genuinely like the character, but there are also those that support them because they are a likely character, and perhaps not their first choice, but the only choice they see feasible. As far as Kirby reps go, that seems to be where many fall with Bandana Dee.
You have to admit, Sakurai would at the very least consider Bandanna Dee, he might find it just as excessive as you do; however, it is certainly going to be something he contemplates.
We can't pretend to know what or what not Sakurai considers. It's not like Bandana Dee is going to be topping any polls that grab Sakurai's attention.
It's entirely possible Sakurai didn't even think about Ridley and Krystal in a playable capacity during the Brawl-era, so for all we know a character like Bandana Dee wouldn't cross his radar, especially if he thinks his series is represented adequately as it is.
The Krystal example wasn't necessarily comparing the two characters, it had more to do with the association of one arbitrary notion inciting so many detractors. With Bandanna Dee it is always "Kirby is fine as is" and with Krystal it is always "Star Fox is a dead series." It isn't fair to take one overt assumption and pretend as though that is an objective reason that the character will not make it as a playable.
Both of those points are valid, though SF's is a bit of an overstatement. Kirby does already have its principal cast, and Sakurai doesn't expand past the principal cast unless he implements semi-clones (of which it's very unlikely Bandana Dee would be) or if the series is that of Mario levels, which Kirby isn't. It isn't subjective, it's objective; there is no precedent of Sakurai taking from the "next round" of picks for a series the size of Kirby's when it comes to original priority characters.
And if Star Fox was an active series, Krystal would most likely be in a much different place than she is now, but that's by no means the only point against her.
That being said, given the limited roster space under time constraints, I don't necessarily find Bandanna Dee to be the most feasible either, I just believe he is WAY more likely than many give him credit for (as they blatantly dismiss him on a whim).
Why? Because he's feasible? That really doesn't mean much, there are an abundance of feasible characters. Because he's next in line for Kirby? That implies Kirby
must be getting a new character, which is far from true considering their main characters are all already present.
No, I still haven't forgiven Game and Watch or R.O.B., and I probably never will. I have warmed up to the Ice Climbers, but that was VERY recent, it took me about a decade. I wouldn't mind if they didn't make it into Smash 4.
Most people by and large will warm up to just about any addition despite what they might say now.
