Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kleavor

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kleavor

[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)

I always raise an eyebrow slightly when a new minor Pokemon gets an article, but I try to give it a fair shake because there are often unique things that the press latch onto, like coral bleaching for Galarian Corsola. Unfortunately, after reading the entirety of the sources, I am left unconvinced that Kleavor is standalone notable. Most of the sources are simple trivial mentions in top-10 lists alongside numerous other Pokemon that get equal billing, or trivial mentions in papers about other subjects (namely, analysis of Hisui/Sinnoh as a region).

The TheGamer article is easily the largest mention of Kleavor, but, as criticism goes, it's pretty low-quality, and written in a Kotaku-esque manner where the journalist makes a glorified forum post. For example, she constantly asks "what's a Noble Pokemon", and while I don't know either, a simple 2-second Google search would clear that up instead of using it as a "ya darn kids and your Pokeymens" comedy gag. Overall, not fantastic analysis for the "best" source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Because this has been brought up in the discussion - there is a scholarly article on the Pokemon by a visual design researcher that is not a trivial mention at all. I neglected to mention this in the AfD and for that I apologize. Nevertheless, it is unclear how much the paper has been cited, if at all. It is also my belief that even if it is declared a WP:RS, my opinion on the notability wouldn't change. However, I must mention it here for complete disclosure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Keep

I've been extremely patient with your behavior, but I feel these summaries are getting outright rude and predatory to the point of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's fine if you don't, but don't blow smoke about "trivial sources" when the article has an eleven page entry in a published journal discussing its design (titled, no less, Visual Design Analysis of Kleavor Character in Pokémon Legends: Arceus Game). It has a full paragraph in another published journal dedicated to its design and how it helps teach geoscience about Japan. It has a full article in Inside, a major Japanese gaming publication, going over the origin of its Japanese name and examination of its meaning. TheGamer article you're so quick to dismiss goes into detail why Henley, the website's editor in chief, dislikes the design, a statement she's echoed across other articles mind you even when singing it's praises. There is more than enough to establish WP:THREE here, especially for a Pokemon, no less one barely two years old in the franchise.
Additionally, WP:SIGCOV at no point states lists cannot nor should not be used: every entry cited there offers tangible thoughts about the subject and unique thoughts in regards to one another. SIGCOV in no way says that the article's entire subject matter needs to be related to the subject. We are well past the days of 1UP and GameDaily's single blurb lines about why something is "cool!"
Lastly, I want to call out that your frequent use of AfD, in light of avenues of discussion or working with other editors when several editors have reached out to you, has been detrimental overall to the video game project if not the characters task force alone. Editors are concerned about starting articles because they dread you will AfD them out of the blue. To boot, you could easily see this was up for WP:GAN, and rather than open a line of discussion, you approached this in not only a rude manner but absolutely zero correspondence with the editor working on it. Editors should not be stuck dreading their own work, let alone worried about wasting their time because you take notice. Good day sir.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, that the nominator identified the discussion of Kleavor in academic papers, one of which spans 11 pages, as trivial is one of two potential issues. Firstly, it may be a WP:CIR concern by virtue of not doing due diligence to properly examine the content of the sources before nominating it, which is deeply concerning for someone who regularly involves themselves in AfDs and AfCs. The other angle I see is that the nominator may be trying to make the AfD seem stronger than it actually is by downplaying the actual strength of the sourcing to get the article deleted, which is once again a serious issue for me. The Inside Games and TheGamer sources are clearly acceptable examples of sigcov, and Kleavor is given coverage in other sources otherwise. It clears more than WP:THREE with stronger sigcov, and frankly, TheGamer source is a stronger source than sources I have seen the nominator support in the past as demonstrations of notability. It makes me unsure what the nominator considers a "glorified forum post" (not a deletion rationale), given their defense of sources such as this. I bring this up because I question the judgment of the nominator in dismissing a piece of sigcov because of tone, and frankly, "I don't like this comedy gag about Noble Pokémon" is an extremely, extremely weak reason to dismiss a source from the website's editor-in-chief. Simply put, we do not have a policy or guideline that suggests that an article's tone impacts the usability of the content of a source - not on its own, anyway. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really not a fan of the ad-hominem attacks going on from Kung-Fu Man and Cukie Gherkin here. I get it, you worked hard on the article, but please argue on the merits of the sources rather than casting baseless aspersions that I am doing spurious AfDs.

To respond to the claim of an "11 page source" existing and that I failed to perform WP:BEFORE, I will add that it appears, at least to me, to be a student paper from a program on visual design studies. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, just because something appeared in an e-journal does not immediately imply reliability unless it has been heavily cited by others, and the fact that you are putting it forth as though such a thing is obvious demonstrates issues with source analysis. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with this article, I was critical of the personal standards you applied in the case of TheGamer and the lack of due diligence to identify the scholarly source as being a trivial degree of focus on the subject. If you had presented the argument that this source was an issue because it's allegedly a student paper, that would not elicit the concern over your claim of trivial coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the paper in question, Muh Ariffudin Islam, the co-author of the cited piece, has over twenty published journals according to Google Scholar, several of which also in English according to researchgate, as well as having his own laboratory at the university. I will stress that your whole initial argument was the paper consisted of a "trivial mention", which is clearly not the case, and even after the co-author can be demonstrated as having expertise.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other arguments. I will state that while I did help with setting up the article, I only did so out of a confidence toward the subject's notability. The fact there's multiple verifiable sources focusing entirely on the subject- including several research papers- analyzing Kleavor's design, says a lot to me about the notability of the subject. I do feel the arguments brought up about the nom are better off on the nom's talk page than here, but excluding that I do feel notability is soundly verifiable, and there is a good Wikipedia:THREE here at minimum. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm incline to agree with the rationale presented by the article's creator in regards to why this article should be kept. Upon closer inspection of the article, the reception more than passes WP:THREE and further more, doesn't clash with WP:VG/S. The critiques made in the TheGamer article are still as valid regardless of the wordage/vocabulary use here. And as for why the clueless-ness about the Noble Pokemon is there in the first place, that is down to the fact that Kleavor had only recently been announced and with that so was the concept of "Noble Pokemon" (the game would release 4 months after Kleavor's reveal) and at the time the only information Game Freak gave was that Noble Pokemon were "to hold power not held by regular Pokémon". Not that having a quip about not knowing what Noble Pokemon was should diminish the contents of the source to begin with. As for the papers, I believe them to be substantial and not mere trivial mentions as is mentioned in the deletion rationale. And for why the papers should be kept regardless of them being student papers, I'm incline once again to agree with the rationale posted by KFM and Cukie as they have proven, at least to me, that these papers are have substantial notability due to their author. Captain Galaxy 19:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - putting aside any arguments over the nominator's tone and conduct, the article most certainly meets WP:THREE already with the TheGamer article, the Inside article, and the journal analysis. As an aside, Wikipedia:Notability states directly that something can be declared significant coverage even if it is not the main topic of the source material. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:22, 2 October 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.