Deletion of Centaurs in popular culture

Comment: per  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:ARTN)

Comment: This article has issues, but , there are enough sources as already mentioned above to pass , also recall the  guideline section. The biggest issue may be that a lot of those are tertiary like the compendia mentioned above and the specialty niche encyclopedias on literature, mythology, fantasy, and what-not that searches pull up, but those can be worked from. There are some calls for  above, which is basically a claim that while the subject itself is notable it would be easier to start from scratch. However, upon a review of the article nothing wrong or hoaxy is jumping out, the existing content can be used as it can with some effort be sourced the key is that content be Verifi''able'', fixing articles in this case is usually faster compared to having to do the research all over again, and why remove attribution credit from those who've already started this. Merging back to Centaur is a viable option, as the pages are in the discretionary range from a size perspective. I don't see a compelling policy based reason to merge, however admittedly I don't see a compelling policy based reason not to merge either. Mostly it comes down to content organization and presentation. leaving separate is less work, especially given as these should both eventually be sizeable enough to require a separation which would then require a later spin-out, and perhaps a hair friendlier to some of our mobile viewers, so I come down narrowly on Keep instead of merge in this case. Special:Contributions/2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D|2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP||WP:GNG||WP:NEXIST||WP:TNT)

Comment: Dumping ground for unrelated trivia, largely unsourced. ,  apply. No indication of notability of this as a topic. Chimera in popular culture would need a separate nomination as it has not received an AfD tag
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:NOTPLOT)

Comment: or redirect to centaur:  applies. As it stands, it's a laundry list of every kind of popular media that contains a centaur. This kind of thing could possibly be recreated as list of centaurs, but if this is to be created as an encyclopedic article, it should discuss the position of centaurs in popular culture with some selected notable appearances, and should have references to reliable sources that discuss the role of centaurs in popular culture at length
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per above. Agreed the article needs a good amount of sources. But it is not FUBAR IMO and  is not a guideline but an essay
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: this is a bad use of AFD to attempt  outside a good reason for TNT: clean up the article-- contemporary treatment of centaurs, per the sources brought by this discussion, represent a substantial topic outside of their historical treatment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: to Centaur with a possible light merge.  Sources show that there have been discussion regarding the use of centaurs in modern art/literature/etc.  That is a valid topic.  What the sources do ''not'' support is a massive, indiscriminate list of trivia, which is what this "article" is.  Without all of the cruft, the topic could easily be incorporated into the main Centaur article without necessitating a  into a separate article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)

Comment: per {{U|Toughpigs}} and . While AfD is not for cleanup, this listing has alerted us to an article that needs improving
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)