Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pit (Kid Icarus) (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pit (Kid Icarus)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Pit (Kid Icarus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was brought back recently, and again I feel the arguments of the previous AfD hold true here. Every new source added- with few exceptions- are either unreliable or a very trivial mention in a review of Uprising. Even using sources from the previous iteration of Pit's article, there still isn't nearly enough for a whole article. I recommend to restore the redirect, since nothing has been proven to state that the discussion's consensus has changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kazama16, who revived the article, for thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect - This was just Merged by pretty strong consensus at an AFD just three months ago, and really should not have been unilaterally restored without some kind of discussion first, which as far as I can see did not happen. But, regardless of that, the current version does not show any greater coverage in reliable sources that was presented or found in the previous discussion. All of the added sources in the reception section are simply reviews and coverage of Kid Icarus: Uprising as a whole, where the few sentences and quotes that specifically talk about Pit as a character are being cherry picked out to give the illusion of significant coverage. Uprising was a notable game that garnered many reviews, but cobbling together a dozen minor sentences of "reception" on the main character in them do not add together to give Pit his own notability separate from that of the games he appears in. Rorshacma (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Sources that are used are press releases, listicles, or articles about the game not the character. Still the same as the previous AfD. Update. Article still fails notability. Most were just trivia or passing mentions. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Boneless Pizza! Listicles??? where show me sources that cite "Top 10 best video game characters", Top 10 archers in video games" show me where are those sources? please carefully check the article before choosing your decision. Also what about page no 8 and 9 of this book in Portuguese about Pit.[1]] This whole article is about him.[2] and this too [3] (about his supposed design). There might be even more sources that are currently not present in the article, so stop being quick for deletion as I suggest. Kazama16 (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was exaggerating about listicles, but you're just throwing unreliable sources here except the book one which might be bit useful. Pls do not bludgeon the discussion and make any WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to your original assessment, I would say this one is definitely a listicle (and one that isn't even on Pit at that!), so you were not wrong. Rorshacma (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a mention of Pit in it on 9# Tetris. Quote= How cool is that? Well, it’s even cooler than you think because it’s not only Link; Samus Aran joins him on the cello, Pit plays the violin Kazama16 (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think "How cool is that? Pit plays the violin" is a valuable commentary to add at the article? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the game he appeared in not reception Kazama16 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he wasn't mentioned in it, I said that he was not the topic of the listicle in question. That sentence you quoted is the very definition of trivial coverage that is a very good example of showing what kind poor sources and cherry picked quotes are having to be used to try to make it look like the character has more coverage than he actually does. Rorshacma (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't really bludgeoning, they're just defending their reasons for making the article. Regardless, per above, 3 is only dev info, and that can only go so far given the lackluster Reception. The Fwoosh does not seem to be a reliable source. The book source is entirely plot summary from a quick read. None of these seem to be making an impact on notability, and per prior AfDs, searches for sources have historically turned up very little, making the THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument moot. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "so stop being quick for deletion as I suggest" doesn't sound right. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested the nominator not you, in a friendly way. Kazama16 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but it still doesn't sound right to say it like that, and I don't think it is in a "friendly way". Sometimes it is really hard to help you, like I already told you before not to work on your Draft:Takeda Takahashi, because that character is not notable, but yet you still persist. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring my past to this discussion, it has nothing to do with it. Kazama16 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect My prior rationale remains the same. I agree that it should have been discussed before it was restored. Perhaps it's worth pinging the restorer to this discussion to maybe give their opinion? Personally, I would not have taken it to AfD knowing the outcome will be the same, just redirect it. Conyo14 (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt it was likely going to cause some dispute if I did BLAR it, hence why I chose to AfD it. Additionally, I have already pinged the restorer, and they are actively participating in the discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I had drafted my response before seeing the restorer's active discussion Conyo14 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I think the article needs clean up and a trim to focus on best sources, from a search I'm left with a sense of sufficient coverage, beyond trivial mentions in a game review, of Pit as a multimedia character not reducible to a Kid Icarus redirect (perhaps only just, but even so). Participants in the discussion may already be aware of this IGN article which covers Pit across several media appearances outside Kid Icarus. In addition to that, I found this Bleeding Cool article reporting on and assessing a Pit figurine. And the first chapter of this academic book from Bloomsbury Publishing includes coverage of the Pit character in the Kid Icarus franchise. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A figurine/merchandise doesn't help WP:GNG; thus the article is still in a weak state. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has not been checked properly; the nominator has only looked over the reception section without checking the further reading section and assumed that it is not notable per the other two previous AFDS. Kazama16 (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacking evidence that the nominator has not done that, I must say that as someone who has, it would not have caused me to change my mind about nominating it. All of the further reading section is either WP:ROUTINE articles coming about due to Uprising's announcement or an interesting but unreliable student article for a student magazine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive me for missing that, most video game character articles lack significant external reading sections, and additionally, those with them typically cite the articles in the Reception. In any case, per Cukie Gherkin above, I see no real significant coverage on Pit as a character in here. One is a review of an action figure unrelated to Pit's character, and the majority of the others are routine Kid Icarus Uprising coverage. The Writer's Block Magazine source looks decent, but I am unfamiliar with their reliability. In any case, one good source out of a swamp of them isn't really enough to justify Pit as an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see much commentary in the IGN article. It seems more to be a summary of Pit's appearances, and any commentary that could be taken out of it is cherry picking. The Siliconera article is less about Pit and more about the make of a figurine than anything. The book source seems to be more about the Kid Icarus game itself being compared to the game Athena. Anything relating to Pit is in regards to his character is just plot summary, though correct me if I've missed anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the book source, WP:SIGCOV states that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. On the Siliconera article, the article is about a figurine—of Pit. This isn't about figurines generally; it's about content pertaining to this character that would probably be undue in Kid Icarus but are relevant to understanding to the character Pit as promoted by the company and consumed by audiences. As for the IGN article, it seems we disagree with how to read and regard the source. Related to the book and IGN article, I'll add that I don't see where in WP:SIGCOV coverage that summarizes is prohibited. A Wikipedia article shouldn't be purely summary, but that doesn't necessarily mean a source isn't significant coverage if it is providing summarization. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect Nothing against articles getting revived, but this is still in the same place it was from the last AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional source analysis While Odyssey may have "paid editorial website", I strongly believe anyone looking at the source used is going to quickly realize that is not a valid analysis of the character. We reject Forbes contributor articles from Paul Tassi and Erik Kain for less. And I feel like that's a recurring problem going on with the sourcing here, a hope that people are not actually looking at *what* the sources are saying and instead simply hoping they'll be enough. I mean no offense to Ms. Malbera, but is this genuinely the level of content we feel is appropriate for an encyclopedia? Going further, this is not a character analysis from The Gamer. It's a statement of traits to try and work into the context of Dungeons and Dragons. If there was additional commentary here on his character I could see it, but that's not the case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. On Talk:Pit (Kid Icarus) I did a rundown of all the references in the Critical Reception section (since it seems like the most problematic section at a glance), and that article is not the quality I'd expect from a reliable source. –LilacMouse (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, I see you edited while I was writing. I mean specifically Ms. Malbera's article. I haven't looked at the D&D one. –LilacMouse (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect I get the feeling the user who revived the article does not "get" what significant coverage is. Sheer amount of sources will not rescue an article, quality over quantity is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I mostly agree with Pokelego but not with the IGN article as not having "significant coverage,"  it's definitely useful and mostly about Pit. Although if you are assuming that it is not, that's all on you, sorry to say. This is about his prototype design, along with a YouTube video given by Game Informer (I don't know if it's reliable to you or not) after the 7:15 mark. It's mostly about adult Pit and his design. Nintendo Life (which may be unreliable to all of you) also covered this information in their article [4]. If the decision is still "restore redirect,"  I'm happily fine with the limited information being merged into Kid Icarus (series). Kazama16 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see some decent reception in there, with Ars Technica, The Odyssey Online and Wired being the best sources, IMO. And the IGN source Hydrangeans provided is a good one too. It's not the best, but I don't think it warrants a re-merge either. MoonJet (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to have to ask you to point out specifically what reception on Pit in the Ars Technica and Wired articles you are considering to be decent, because both of those are ones that I am seeing very little discussion about Pit as a character, no more than a sentence or two. For example, with the Wired article, the only discussion I am really seeing about Pit that isn't just stating the premise of Uprising is the writer being annoyed that a friend of his wasn't cast as the voice actor as planned. Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to pretend I know enough about Wikipedia policies yet (yes, hello, I know my account is like 2 hours old) to say whether this page has an excessive amount of detail that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia, though I think it might. But I can say I looked at that Critical Reception section, saw it was a wall of text, and decided to try something.
Here's my sandbox, with the Critical Reception section edited so each reference is its own paragraph. Not only does it now take up half again as much space as the wall-of-text version, it and its references combined look like it's nearly half of the entire article.
Again, I'm new to Wikipedia, but this kind of looks like WP:OVERCITEing in the pursuit of proving notability? Possibly a WP:REFBOMB, if discussion above about how the references aren't really about Pit specifically is correct, but I've only copyedited the section, not looked at the references themselves. I hope having the Reception section separated into paragraphs makes it easier for other people to check the refs. -LilacMouse (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied paragraph spacing to the main article. –LilacMouse (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @LilacMouse has trimmed the Reception down to just sources talking about Pit, which can be viewed on the current edit of the article (The previous edit with all of the sources can be found here) I will note that this does not include the Odyssey source, which seems reliable and in-depth, and includes Goomba Stomp and The Fwoosh, which to my knowledge are unreliable sources. Even then, with only two really good sources holding up Reception, this article isn't meeting WP:THREE, which I know is considered a threshold by many editors. Many of the other sources suggested in this discussion have been debunked for one reason or another, and even if a third source is found, it's been proven by these discussions that Pit lacks a lot of critical commentary, meaning he would quite literally only have three sources, which, in this hypothetical scenario, does not guarantee enough for a split from the parent article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided not to keep the Odyssey source because the website looks like it's mostly UGC, which per WP:UGC is "generally unacceptable". This page specifically reads like a blog post, not reliable coverage. Honestly, Odyssey looks like a content farm to me.
I don't think I removed any of the sources when I added paragraph spacing, so here's my edit just before I pruned the section: here –LilacMouse (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, had no idea that Odyssey was UGC. Thank you for pointing that out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The sources added are by and large low-quality or not a show of notability. As far as the sources mentioned by Dream Focus go, I question their judgment when they are arguing that a WP:ROUTINE news piece about figure release is a show of notability or significance. Articles about figure releases are very common, there is nothing exceptional about this. The D&D source is also quite tenuous, being a part of many articles, which doesn't come off as an exceptional source. It doesn't help that the article is from a source said to not be usable to demonstrate notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To the AfD closer right here. Most of the keep votes are using the Odyssey source as their argument, but it is claimed to be a WP:UGC per above. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment Procedurally, I would normally revert this type of anti-consensus change, and restore the redirect. But this source from Dream Focus has a lot of potential [5]. It's an article entirely about the character, and not a mention or gameguide style reference. We'd need someone to actually include some of the reception in the final section. We'd also need more sources than this. But I am open to the idea that good sources exist, and this article can be edited to meet minimum standards of quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be primarily plot summary and conception info more than Reception. It's not a bad source but for the purposes of Reception there's very little. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that reception is not only way to help notability. It's the best way, particularly when it comes to characters, but not the only way. Conception is another good way to help notability. MoonJet (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like after three attempts, and even my own attempts at looking for sources, that IGN reference is an outlier sadly. That may change over time as more retrospectives happen but for the current state there just doesn't seem to be the sources to support the hypothesis that more exist.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore redirect Honestly, as someone deeply into fandom, I don't think Wikipedia really needs articles on most fictional characters when fandom-specific wikis exist. The people who most care about Pit as separate from the games he appears in will probably go to a fandom-specific wiki.
Maybe this is just a me thing, but here's an example of my thinking: I'm a fan of Mass Effect and Dragon Age. I think it's really neat that Commander Shepard and Hawke (Dragon Age) are notable enough to get Wikipedia articles. As far as I can tell, they're notable because people talk a lot about them as characters, and they've been influential as characters to video game creation and discussion.
Pit (Kid Icarus)... isn't anywhere close to that influential. Kid Icarus is a small game series in terms of the attention it gets, and as much as I might love Pit (Okay. Mostly my sister loves Pit. I've learned about Kid Icarus out of self-preservation.), I haven't seen any proof in this discussion that he's sufficiently notable separately from the things he's appeared in.
I think, if someone (@Kazama16:? since you revived the article?) wants to continue to make the case that Pit deserves an article of his own, the thing to do is to clone the article into their userspace and keep working on it from there. –LilacMouse (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pit_(Kid_Icarus)_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1225791973"