Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 15 September 2020

Ghosts (Pac-Man)

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Ghosts (Pac-Man) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as non-notable game characters. Any pertinent sourced information in this article can easily be mentioned in either the article for the original Pac-Man or the series. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Saw this in my email inbox. A while back I made a short draft article for the ghosts that I never got around to finishing, maybe some of the sources here could prove useful? Namcokid47 20:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Very much so. We could use more info of that caliber on the articles. I myself felt they should be notable enough for info like that. Jhenderson 20:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I see no reason why this can't be integrated into the pacman article. Balle010 (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Namcokid47 has sources which, when implemented in the article, will prove it's notability.(Oinkers42) (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Looking at that draft, I'm still heavily dubious about the article's notability. It seems like your typical WP:REFBOMB with trivial mentions and many listicles comprising their reception._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Weren’t they considered as the seventh greatest video game villain of all time by IGN? The link of that 100 villain list I can’t seem to find now. Jhenderson 14:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

CNN: talked about them. Jhenderson 14:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat misleading, since the video is about the game itself rather than specifically about the ghosts. Which lines up with what I said in the nomination about not needing a separate article. Also, as largely an interview it probably doesn't count towards notability as WP:PRIMARY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Listicles shouldn’t be treated as not reliable or notable sources. Definitely when it comes to the “greatest” list. That is stupid if you don’t think they count on improving notability. Jhenderson 14:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep per WP:Imperfect. Considered as iconic video game villains in many modern lists. Referenced in popular culture many times. Referenced by media outlets such as CNN and GameRant about their development etc. Overall characters that everyone has heard of in an iconic game. Jhenderson 14:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment These sources might help , , (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• See WP:ITSPOPULAR. Do they have an iconic visual appearance? Yes, that is unquestionable. But are they individually notable as characters? There's plenty of trivial mentions but nothing that delves into a deep character study... because there is no character to study._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Are they notable for being characters, probably not. Are they notable for being icons and figures of gaming, yes. Is The Burger King notable for being a character or for his image? Characters can be iconic and notable for their image. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Now we are being nit picky on guidelines. I didn’t say anything about popularity outside of pop-culture. Also that guideline talks about the fallacy on not explaining why it’s popular.Jhenderson 16:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of fallacies:

1. Nowhere at WP:NOTABILITY, WP:GNG, or WP:NFICTION is it specified that a character has to have a fully three-dimensional fleshed out backstory to be notable.
2. Characters also don't have to have Batman-levels of iconic status, or some groundbreaking real world effect (such as curing cancer) to be considered notable. They do, however, need to be written from a real world perspective.
3. WP:GNG refers only to the sheer existence of coverage (see also - WP:DELREASON). Every deletion policy/guideline also specifies not to nominate articles based solely on the state of sourcing in the References section. Anyone who does this is essentially asking for a Procedural keep at this point. As recent nominations have indicated, the community is finally catching on to those.

Fiction-related topics are frequently nitpicked and held under a microscope (moreso than other topics), but I think that's enough fallacies busted for one comment. Darkknight2149 00:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect - Redirect to the main article and build it up from there. It appears pretty much all the information on them could be easily slotted in there at the moment. Should it represent too much weight, it can then be split out at that time. Aside from a few minor adaptations, the ghosts have no character, personality, backstory, or any real information that warrants an article. For those particular appearances, the articles on the adaptations are sufficient to cover that context. TTN (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Let this page stay. While being the notable Pac-Man villains, the Ghosts deserve their own articles. Plus, @(Oinkers42): and @Jhenderson777: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Per the sources presented by Namcokid and (Oinkers42). Darkknight2149 18:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: In addition to the previously identified sources, I added a paragraph to the article from Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949-2003 (McFarland & Co, 2005), which discusses how the creators of the 1982 cartoon handled the problem of depicting the hero eating the ghosts. I think that this helps to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per citations provided by Namcokid and Oinkers as well as reasoning given above. CaptainGalaxy 20:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Keep after merging User:Namcokid47/Ghost Gang into it. The current article is still mostly fancrufty PLOT, but Namcokid47's draft is already much better. But it needs to be merged there, otherwise we will end up keeping a pile of mostly garbage again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Merge the draft content on over, and its fine. Dream Focus 16:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep/merge with the excellent work from User:Namcokid47. Well sourced and on its way to a good article. Definitely viable.Shooterwalker (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: It is clearly notable with reliable sources. I do not think merging is necessary. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates
• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)