Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centaurs in popular culture
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
— [[User talk:2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D|talk]]), 03:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP||WP:GNG||WP:NEXIST||WP:TNT (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)