Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pac-Man clones

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ({{find video game sources short|Pac-Man clones|linksearch=}}) • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

:{{la|Pac-Man clones}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Pac-Man clones}})

Primary sources. Loaded with non-notable, redlinky examples (shame, since Best Before Yesterday's Maniac was very good — I have fond memories of playing that on my LC520 in the 90s). Any that are notable enough can be merged to the Pac-Man article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• This was split for length in a more innocent age, and a re-merge shouldn't be controversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

::Ten Pound Hammer, could you tell us exactly what part of WP:DEL#REASON applies? (Also see WP:PGL.) It seems that you want a merge with redirect (one of the alternatives to deletion listed in the link above) rather than deletion. I think a merge with redirect would be appropriate, especially with some general cleanup. In my opinion, deletion without merging would not. Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

:::I want it deleted because very few of the listings is independently notable (WP:SALAT), and a merge would be pointless as I think that only one or two are notable enough for a mention on the Pac-Man article. For instance, Hangly-Man is definitely standalone notable, but I doubt most of the others are. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}

I am not seeing the above reason for deletion listed in WP:DEL#REASON.

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:Re: "I want it deleted because very few of the listings is independently notable", WP:LSC says that this is a reason for putting items on a list: "Common selection criteria ... Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:: Why don't you find the page that says "Don't make pedantic comments". If you can't find it I'd guess some otters will. Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Please be WP:CIVIL. Ten Pound Hammer, when asked exactly what what part of WP:DEL#REASON applies, listed as a reason something not found in WP:DEL#REASON. My hope was that asking specific questions might result in an answer to the question asked. Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:::: You delete your own uncivil comments and have the gaol to call me uncivil for pointing them out? Szzuk (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

::::It's entirely possible for a valid deletion rationale to fall outside WP:DEL#REASON. Why not turn that around. What do we get from keeping a list where maybe two entries are notable? Two entries is not a list. WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE apply here. Not everything has to be chiseled in stone — it seems too many process wonks like you go nucular over the slightest deviation from OMGPROCESS. And posting an equally pedantic tl;dr filibuster ain't helping your case either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::You could have replied saying that you have some other reason for deletion the first time I asked, thus avoiding my asking again in more detail.

:::::OK, so you say you have some other reason for deletion. What is it? The only reason you have given so far is specifically listed as a reason for putting items on a list. What you fail to grasp is that I am trying to help you. I could have stayed silent and watched as the deleting admin denies your nomination on the grounds of it not being listed in WP:DEL#REASON, but instead I encouraged you to explain why you wish to delete this. Responding by firing up the flamethrower is unlikely to convince the deleting admin. Sound policy-based reasoning is. So please stop engaging in personal attacks and incivility and please explain in a calm, cool manner, on what grounds you wish to have this page deleted. Also, when someone asks a question, please try to answer the question. Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a content fork, that doesn't add anything to WP. Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Please list the other article(s) that you believe to be on the same subject as this article. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

::Pedantic much? [] YES [] YES. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Please don't engage in personal attacks, and please don't collapse legitimate questions with titles that are uncivil. Such collapsing is controversial, so please review WP:TPOC and list the specific reason why you think the collapse is appropriate in your edit comment.

:::BTW, you seem to be assuming from the fact that I have asked you to explain your reasoning that I oppose the deletion. That is not the case. ^{changed my mind, for reasons listed in my keep vote below} Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

::::I've told you. This is a special WP:IAR case. Lists are supposed to have five items in them, and with all the non-notable entries removed, this has only four. Listing all of them would violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO, and listing only the most notable ones would not leave enough separate notability since there only appear to be a very small number of individually notable clones. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. Why do you believe that every entry in a list must be notable or be deleted? WP:LSC mentions legitimate lists where "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". WP:N specifically says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." (emhasis in original). Again thank you for discussing your reasoning and for remaining civil.

Also, assuming that the items are deleted and the list becomes only four items long, do you believe that is a reason for deletion rather than for merging the four into Pac-Man? Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Further thought on the "This is a special WP:IAR case." argument above: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means says that:

• " 'Ignore all rules' does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times."

and

• " 'Ignore all rules' is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons."

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

:There's really very little to merge, particularly since the article is now unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

::With all due respect, the above assertion appears to be factually incorrect. I count five Pac-Man clones with Wikipedia pages, all of which appear to be properly sourced. The are: Hangly-Man, Lock 'n' Chase, Snapper (video game), Munch Man, and Ms. Pac-Man ("Orginally called Crazy Otto, this unauthorized hack of Pac-Man was created by General Computer Corporation and sold to Midway without Namco's permission.") --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Pac-Man clones have indeed been cited in copyright court cases, cf. Atari v. North American Phillips Consumer Electronics (672 F.2d. 607 (7th Cir. 1982)), about K. C. Munchkin, and Midway Mfg. Co. v. Dirkschneider (543 F.Supp. 466 (D. Nebraska 1981)) about Mighty Mouth. The court opinions have verifiable information about those games, which is more than enough for a list entry (in fact, Munchkin (video game) already has an article). RJaguar3 | u | t 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per RJaguar3's argument above, and because niether of the supporters of deletion have provided a reason for deletion that conforms to Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Perhaps this article has been improved since it was nominated, but at the moment it appears to be a perfectly good article, if a little short. Powers ^T 13:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

::I just expanded it a bit. Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2011 (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.