Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pit (Kid Icarus) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Kid Icarus (series). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Pit (Kid Icarus)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

While I'm aware the previous AfD was voted keep, I'm nominating this again, arguing that the discussion was overlooking two issues: So in light of this, we have a situation where the character's whole coverage is built around one source that examines his character, and a paper that mentions him briefly while echoing the same observations as the IGN source.
 * The current sourcing in the article is not a case of "needing more to flesh it out", but outside of one singular IGN source near useless. Many are lists that barely discuss the character, and per previous discussions on Captain Falcon or Meta Knight or other Smash Bros. characters, these don't provide enough coverage to warrant an article.
 * So that leaves the two sources brought forth in the last AfD: "Aplicaciones didácticas de los videojuegos en el ámbito del mundo clásico", a published paper that offers some discussion on the character, though only a small amount, and "Women in Classical Video Games", which...doesn't actually discuss Pit, and is more about the series.

It's just not enough to hold up Pit as an article, sadly. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. The coverage in the article is substantially lacking, and there isn't enough to support its existence. This AfD and the prior one have already clarified very little else exists in terms of coverage, and thus the chances of anything else coming up are unlikely. Some of this might be worthwhile to discuss in Kid Icarus's Legacy section, but there's just not enough here for a whole article.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kid Icarus. Virtually nothing in the article constitutes significant coverage, and it relies excessively on articles of a type that have been routinely rejected as typically trivial (Smash rankings, Smash wishlists, etc.). From the previous AfD, it also feels like people were just arguing that sources merely mentioning Pit passed GNG. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect Per my last AfD !vote. My view on the article hasn't changed at all since then. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Mostly were just passing mentions.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 13:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - If it is going to be redirected again, can we redirect it to Kid Icarus (series) instead? (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom to Kid Icarus (series). I didn't get the chance to vote on the last AFD, but it is clear that the sources mention the Smash series moreso than even the Kid Icarus series. Also, the sources pinged in the last AFD showed no signs of improvement to the article and mere mentions than in-depth analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you have a lot of the people who agreed with you back in July when this was nominated, seems unfair others aren't told the discussion started up again.       That's everyone who hasn't participated yet.   D r e a m Focus  05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dream Focus While I'm certain in my arguments, I'm going to say I feel doing this the way you are comes pretty close to canvassing, if not canvassing outright.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith! I just found it an odd coincidence that the four who wanted to get rid of the article last time, happen to show up and try again.  Seemed wrong to not include everyone who participated months ago, since you are just redoing the same exact argument.  I do believe its gaming the system to keep sending things to AFD just because you didn't get the results you wanted the first time.   D r e a m Focus  05:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would also recommend you WP:AGF, since you are assuming that they are doing this in an attempt to game the system. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can not assume good faith with this editor, who decided to ignore the previous AFD ending in Keep and eliminate the article himself and make it a redirect. After being reverted, he then did it again.  Then he brings it to AFD for a second time.  Not getting the results you want, so ignoring consensus and keep trying until you succeed, is gaming the system.   D r e a m Focus  00:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus has been warned to cease their blatant canvassing. Sergecross73   msg me  12:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. While the message could have been a tad more neutral, this isn't a canvassing violation.  Notifying everyone at a previous AFD is good form, and helps avoid a WP:DRV under the argument that an AFD simply wasn't noticed by the relevant editors.  Per WP:VOTESTACK, "Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances."  This appears to have indeed been a valid notification of everyone at the previous AFD.  SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's...difficult to believe that was his intention with his whole preamble there... Sergecross73   msg me  19:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While I feel as though notifying users in a prior AfD is a good process, the reasonings behind doing so definitely don't feel like a good faith action. There was an immediate assumption we were working together solely because we voted "Merge" last time. The names who voted before the mass ping are all fairly frequent in this deletion sorting, so their votes aren't exactly a rarity, and it's also not unreasonable to assume that people will hold the same opinions as before, especially given that the article has not changed substantially since the prior AfD. There's nothing here pointing to any potential form of "rigging the vote" and it instead comes off as justification to call in other users for support instead of as a good faith notification of a new discussion. It's too late to really do anything about it, but this doesn't exactly come off as good faith practice. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there's a pretty bad faith argument put forth, implying that the people who participated in the discussion were canvassed into doing so. Of the five people participating, all are regular participants at AfD and merge discussions as they appear on the project banner, and both the nominator and I edited the article extensively, so I would have had extra reason to be aware. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage is quality not quantity, no absolute limit set in the notability guidelines. So https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/01/27/you-dont-know-kid-icarus would be enough.  But there is more, at https://www.thegamer.com/how-to-build-pit-kid-icarus-dungeons-dragons-dnd/ and many smaller mentions of him about as well in many other places.  thegamer gets 1,077 results for Wikipedia articles its referenced in, so I assume its a reliable source.   D r e a m Focus  05:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that I did find these two articles in my BEFORE search. I just felt they lacked the substance to land Pit his own article. Conyo14 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Gamer is typically only used with articles that show significant coverage, and even in that case, whether they establish notability is contentious; on WP:VG/RS, it's noted that it shouldn't be used to establish notability. I don't necessarily agree with that, as I think some coverage from The Gamer is very strong. However, the D&D article is a dime a dozen, literally, as The Gamer has done roughly a dozen other articles about roleplaying fictional characters in D&D. Even if we took this as significant that Pit was chosen, what would we even use this source to say in the article? It just describes his personality, his role in the series, his skillset, and how he would fit into D&D. You speak of quality, but I would consider this extremely low quality as far as significant coverage. As far as the first goes, it is closer to significant coverage, but at the same time, what does it really say? It'd be great to use for, like, citations for information about Pit, but yeah, it's just a profile. There's nothing really we can take from it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd say TheGamer counts towards things, but this is totally unrelated to Pit's appearance in his own games. I can't possibly see how Pit as a D&D character would be relevant to his character development in Kid Icarus. The IGN source has already been mentioned in the nom. I couldn't even find any magazine sources that weren't simply about the game itself. This is stretching it a lot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is about the character, not just his appearance in his official games. The character is notable because he's popular enough to get coverage.   D r e a m Focus  00:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The IGN article specifically says that it's talking about him because of the announcement of Kid Icarus: Uprising. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What difference does that make if that's the reason they said its "finally be time to try to get to know him a little bit better."? They gave him quite significant coverage as a character.   D r e a m Focus  03:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For the same reason why "five characters Pit could beat (and five that he can't" or "10 things you didn't know about Pit" are not usable. Describing details about him is in no way, shape, or form significant coverage, and it doesn't show notability, as demonstrated in uncountable merge and AfD discussions. Further, my point is that the article exists for people to better understand the context of an upcoming game, not because Pit is an icon. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge per all. I made a neutral comment last time, because this was the protagonist from a historic game, and I believed there might be sources out there. But enough time has passed and I can't seem to find enough WP:SIGCOV. The character is more or less synonymous with the series, and the sources reflect that. Merge helps WP:PRESERVE the content and build a consensus.
 * Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge and/or Redirect I agree that the sources used are press releases, listicles, or articles about the game not the character. The article from "TheGamer" is basically a joke that doesn't seem usable in any way. ApLundell (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge relevant content and redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think with the sources uncovered in the previous AFD, a keep is warranted. Quite the unpopular opinion in this particular AFD though. I wasn't even going to !vote here, because I knew my input wouldn't sway anything, but I went ahead with it. MoonJet (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep nothing has changed since last AfD, which found sourcing sufficient. I agree. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect per nom; the sourcing here is just not sufficient to support a separate article. The Kid Icarus (series) article could probably support a paragraph or two under #Characters about Pit, since he is central to the series. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.