Pit (Kid Icarus): Most of the content are listicles, nothing else.  I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE about Pit somehow.  (Update:There's a single IGN SIGCOV, but that alone isnt enough.)  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 23:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 06:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Kid Icarus (series)#Characters .  I disagree that there is no SIGCOV out there, as the IGN source in the article is quite significant, but only one SIGCOV is insufficient to make a subject notable.  I could not find anything else, so if someone does (and it's real SIGCOV), notify me and I may amend my ! vote.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 07:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep I've done my WP:BEFORE, and I found two possibly viable sources.  Aplicaciones didácticas de los videojuegos  en el ámbito del mundo clásico has about two pages' worth of material covering Pit role in the story.  The discussion mainly talked about the allusions to how Pit is a syncretic blend of multiple mythological figures and religious figures.  To summarize: the setting Angel Land invokes the angels of the Judeo-Christian tradition, a way of justifying the fact that Pit the hero is an angel, and therefore a flying being; his main weapon is a bow and arrow, which links him to Eros or Cupid; and Pit use a magical hammer at one point in the storyline to undo the petrification of Medusa's victims, which led to the author deciding that it is a veiled allusion to Mjolnir.  The book Women in Classical Video Games has about 4 pages worth.  Pages 16-17 and pages 26-27.  The preview I can see talks about  Pit's presentation and how he is a deity reimagined with a new storyline, and also echoes the theme of the syncretism of real-world mythological elements, remixed into a new context.  By themselves, there may not be enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a standalone article.  Read together with the other sources present on the article, and the fact that the nominator has acknowledged that there is in fact one substantial article with good content, there may be enough aggregate content to indicate that there is significant coverage.  In any event, I disagree with the seemingly widespread practice in recent times of the deliberate misuse of the AFD process to force the improvement of content issues or the discovery of viable sources that may not be cited in the article at the time of the nomination.  Because there is clearly no prospect of deletion with articles like this one.  Haleth ( talk ) 23:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In terms of the Women in Classical Video Games source, it is largely about female characters and only cites Pit as a brief example of one who isn't.  I don't consider it SIGCOV, my opinion is not changed in this regard.  Do think a Merge discussion would have been more appropriate of course as there is a VERY obvious WP:ATD / ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - with the sources provided by Haleth, alongside the IGN source.  I say this passes WP:GNG .  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 05:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - Looking over the sources provided by Haleth I'm not particularly agreeing they can offer SIGCOV: the book seems to examine him briefly, while the paper is more discussing events and examines Medusa more closely by comparison. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 20:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - passes GNG.  I agree that the article should be expanded somewhat.  KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs ) 18:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between those arguing to Keep this article and those who believe a Merge would be best.  Besides the nominator, I don't see support for Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge .  While I feel as though Pit does meet GNG, the article's lack of SIGCOV leaves much to be desired.  Many of the citations in the Reception section feel lackluster overall, and it feels like stretching to make something work.  I feel Pit can likely be remade into an article in the future if a few more good sources are added, but with the current state of the article, I feel merging is the best option.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 00:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:NEXIST .  As long as sufficient sources are found (which you seen to agree on, since you think it passes GNG), they don't necessarily need to be in the article right away when determining if they should be deleted or merged.  MoonJet ( talk ) 03:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely forgot about NEXIST.  Given that clause, I'm unopposed to Keeping the article for the time being, though it should definitely be considered for merging again should there not be enough sources in a future AfD.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 14:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral I think Haleth's finds are borderline useful.  More constructive than a keep or merge ! vote, I'd like to see if the reception can be expanded or retooled with those sources.  It might make it more clear if this has passed the WP:SIGCOV threshold.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 02:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I'm going to have to echo (Oinkers42) on this.  I agree that Pit passes the minimum standards on what Wikipedia expects on articles.  Nice job on uncovering those sources, Haleth.  MoonJet ( talk ) 03:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Haleth.   Sourcing is thin but usable.  SnowFire ( talk ) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I have tidied up the discuss a bit as it was getting to look messy and I agree with the comment above, that this has thin sourcing but it is usable.  -- Bduke ( talk ) 07:24, 5 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep