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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nemona[edit]

Nemona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable character, fails WP:GNG.

Full source analysis follows:
1) Inside Games - press release - primary source - does not count towards notability
2) Automaton Media - news release - not SIGCOV
3) ScreenRant - "marginally reliable source" - fully discusses the character - SIGCOV
4) TheGamer - fully discusses the character - SIGCOV
5) GamesRadar - talks about a few social media posts - not SIGCOV
6) GameRant - talks about a few social media posts - not SIGCOV
7) Inside Games - news release about a Twitter post - not SIGCOV
8) Dexerto - "rarely engages in serious journalism" - does not count towards notability per WP:VG/S
9) Engadget - Review of Scarlet/Violet - not SIGCOV
10) Inside Games - news release about Nemona - not SIGCOV
11) Inside Games - short impressions of several characters - not SIGCOV
12) Automaton Media - DLC plot summary - not SIGCOV

Total SIGCOV: 2 - GNG typically requires several SIGCOV to be notable. Even with ScreenRant and TheGamer, it does not quite cross the threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, as mentioned below, ScreenRant and GameRant are considered content farms I generally try to avoid, so I am giving it a lot of credit by citing it as proof towards notability. Whether they actually count towards notability is usually debatable even if they are usable for lore explanation purposes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, and Anime and manga. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet – I agree the notability of this subject is flimsy, though I would be willing to change to a keep if just a little bit more SIGCOV was found. I think flat out deletion is a bad idea here, and the page history should be preserved. A redirect to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet seems fair. Per the comments and sources found from Kung Fu Man below, I think I can say weak keep. λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not adding my full vote here just yet but I would also suggest either List of Pokémon characters#Paldea or Rivals (Pokémon)#Nemona as alternative redirect targets as the subject of the article are more densely covered there than in the "Scarlet and Violet" article. CaptainGalaxy 00:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect: It seems feasible to cover most information in above mentioned articles. IgelRM (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is not the strongest of articles on Wikipedia, but the assertion that, say, #10 is not sigcov isn't supported by WP:GNG. GNG does not have this standard at all, and in fact emphasizes that an article can constitute a show of notability even if it's not the primary subject of the article. That the article is a news release about Nemona is completely immaterial to the fact that the article goes on to provide significant coverage of Nemona. The summary of #11 as short impressions is also incredibly misleading. Not only is the author's impression of Nemona the title of the article, not only is it the intro to the article, but of the approximately 27 paragraphs, the article spends 40 percent of those paragraphs talking about Nemona. It seems like your objection is not that it's short impressions, but that these impressions exist in an article that discusses other characters as well - a personal issue, and not an issue relevant to GNG. Furthermore, #12 has a DLC plot summary, but it is not strictly plot summary in any way. To my knowledge, the plot is not about Nemona becoming unusually strong unusually fast, this is discussion by the author of the article about her growth and how it relates to the persona she developed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Cukie Gherkin (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
• Comment When it comes to Screen Rant, specifically, I will say that WP:RSP listing it as a "marginally reliable source" is not exactly the full story. It is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. It's also worth noting that WP:RSP links to WP:VGRS#Valnet, which says In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming. (Screen Rant was purchased by Valnet in 2015, according to our article). TompaDompa (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is a bit of analysis in scholarly source here but it is just a bachelor thesis, so barely acceptable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do love sources like these, but yeah, if it's just a bachelor thesis, the only real angle I think can show it's worthwhile to use is if the author has a history of published material, a history of commonly cited material, and/or the thesis is frequently cited. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I do feel the source analysis of #11 is a bit unfair, as a good chunk of the article is just about her, and it does give both initial and post impressions regarding her character. #5 also offers some commentary, albeit light, about the character and I do think gives a decent commentary on fan reaction. There is this article from Comic Book Resources too, which while gameplay leaning does actually discuss her in the context of past rivals (and yes I know CBR blah blah Valnet but it's an editorial). Anime Corner also has a full article, and I've used the website source in a GAN.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm dubious about Anime Corner; the writers are entirely freelancers. It's about one step removed from a blog. If people really think it's a reliable source then I'll go along with it, though I still don't think it would remove all notability concerns. ScreenRant and CBR are both ValNet which means we'd be relying on at least one content farm piece to prove GNG is passed. As is widely known, content farms do not care whether something is "important", and will write an article on a single bean on the ground of a game if it will draw SEO traffic.

  I machine translated #11 and it is very, very shallow coverage. It essentially sums up to "Nemona was more crazy about Pokemon battles than I expected, but is otherwise what I expected". I simply do not believe it would qualify as SIGCOV in a million years. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like this is misstating what is said. The article says that she matched the certain expectations they had, but that they didn't expect this angle of her character. They also identified that her battle mania went above any other character prior. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally I feel editorials from Valnet are fine for notability usage, especially if they can augment existing sources (the CBR and Anime Corner sources work together), or we can illustrate the author has work in other publications. As for Anime Corner itself it's under "Other reliable" on WP:VG/S. Regarding reference 11, while I'm not going to sit here and argue it's somehow massive, it is the primary focus of the article and received several paragraphs, so arguing that it's basically a "short impression" does feel inaccurate Zx.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am going to paste the (admittedly shoddy) machine translation here for reference:

Extended content

So, the first person is "Nemo". As I said at the beginning, my impression before its release was that it was a "reliable older sister trainer." A friend of the main character and a senior Pokémon trainer, he has a bright and energetic personality, and simply loves Pokémon battles. He's a classic character, just like the one pictured in the picture. Even during his first battle with the main character, he kindly advises, "This is my first Pokemon battle! I hope you enjoy it!" However, there was a somewhat fearless smile on his face as he challenged the battle, and I thought that as a senior trainer, he would not let you win easily, and that he must not let his guard down. Now, as for my impressions after interacting with Nemo after its release, well... it was mostly right, right? He's bright, energetic, and reliable. Yes, most of it was just as I had impressions. Except that the level of "I just love Pokemon battles!" was dozens of times more than I expected. He challenges every trainer he sees to a fight, says "Let's fight!" during battles, and is aware of his battle-crazy side, and the more he gets into battles, the more he gets involved in battles. The word "Nemo Victims' Association", which is made up of people who were killed in the attack, started popping up. Anyway, I love Pokemon battles too much! Nowadays, my impression of Nemo is that of a "battle junkie". It is also at a level unparalleled in any previous series. And the best part is the line "It will bear fruit" that he says every time he fights the main character. He senses talent in the main character and is trying to develop him into a trainer who can compete on an equal footing with him... Who could have predicted that people would say on the internet that Nemo "looks like Hisoka from HUNTER x HUNTER"?

• I will let people gauge for themselves if this is SIGCOV that can support an article, it's more of an explanation of her personality than analysis of the character. It's simply telling people how the character is like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But that's not the extent of the article's discussion of Nemona. The first paragraph of the article comments on their feelings about her being an older sister type. The next paragraph talks about how they appreciated that Nemona turned out to be more than that. They also frame the article about talking about the gap (gap being a term typically used in Japanese to refer to contradictory personality traits). Even in your quote, the author makes the point that her battle craziness is to an extent unprecedented in the series. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that even adding a translation of a part of an article might be copyright infringing, so if it is, please feel free to remove it. It is only intended for reference purposes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Kung Fu Man's explanation. I think there is enough to justify an article for now, and personally I believe we are like to see more coverage in the future (though I'm not entirely using that as leverage). CaptainGalaxy 13:12, 31 March 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.