Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghosts (Pac-Man) (2nd nomination)

Ghosts (Pac-Man)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Recently unredirected by another user, who reverted on the basis of wanting a proper discussion as opposed to the previous BLAR. Adhering to this user's request for discussion, I have opened an AfD to determine what should happen to this article. The article's current sourcing state is particularly weak, with many uncited statements and a weak Reception section. If additional sources can be found to justify a split, then it would help the article's case, but right now it's very weak and not quite getting there, in my view. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally pinging @Kung Fu Man, who previously BLAR'd the article, and @Grapesoda22, who reverted the BLAR, for their inputs in this discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per my previous AfD. While as usual I feel like a BLAR was unwarranted as there is no way in heck this is "uncontroversial", especially since it passed a previous AfD, I still feel precisely the same way about the article I did before. There is not much here to warrant a standalone character article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While being bold is all nice and well, the consensus of the last deletion discussion of keeping from 2020 is not so old as to be ignored. The nomination claims there to be many uncited statements, but actually there is only the lead, where references are not generally expected, and one more unreferenced part where still the primary source is present. So just taking the referenced part, we already have an article which is beyond the length of a stub, ergo this topic fulfills the requirements of notability WP:GNG/WP:WHYN. Additionally, while the BLAR claims that trying to find sources has proven fruitless, the previous deletion discussion lists three web articles with the ghosts as the main topic (+ the CNN video), only a fraction of one of which has been used in the article, as listed by (Oinkers42) and detailed by Darkknight2149. Lastly, if the sources here were significant *to* Pac-Man, but not on their own, again as claimed in the BLAR, then why have no attempts been made to integrate at least some of them into Pac-Man as is suggested by Wikipedia:Deletion policy?

Now as the first deletion discussion was not that long ago, pinging the further participants in case they are still around and interested in the topic: @Namcokid47, Eddie891, Jhenderson777, Balle010, TTN, Rtkat3, Toughpigs, Captain Galaxy, Piotrus, Dream Focus, Shooterwalker, and Ret.Prof:. Daranios (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis Let's break this down:

This Kotaku article is an examination of notes regarding the character AI...which pertains strictly to the scope of the original Pac-Man as a game element within Pac-Man. It's the equivalent of making an article for a video game gun because the gun is the strongest in that particular title.
Business Insider's article is also regarding Pac-Man development info, though at least gives a bit more commentary on the ghosts separate of the source in terms of design. It doesn't however help to establish why they should be separate.
This Game Informer article is weirdly more reception for Pac-Man than the Ghosts? It can be cited for reception but won't be the biggest amount of commentary, but it's also the strongest source for actual reception. And this information is mostly already cited in the article.
the aforementioned CNN article which goes hand in hand with the Kotaku ref.
Now these are just the sources brought up during the AfD, but one has to seriously consider what a source is saying. Additionally trying to hold up a 2020 AfD as a gold standard for a Keep when things have improved (including several Smash Bros. related character articles that had similarly weak reception) is a folly. Previously I made a comment that the Koopa Troopa article should have been kept because there was nowhere for that information to go. Here I contend the opposite: the worthwhile information is perfectly fine to merge into the Pac-Man game or series article, and what's here when that's considered is just too weak relying on lists, quips and WP:ITSPOPULAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the explanation of the sources above, we should still be ok for !keep. 2020 was around when I started participating in AfD and the discussion seems to be about of the same quality as the ones now... Oaktree b (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've even done peer-reviewed articles about them: [1], although some might be tongue-in-cheek, we could at least argue the social impact of the ghosts. clicking on the Gscholar link in the lead brings up several journal articles; it seems the "Pac Man ghosts" are used as an analogue for a variety of things being studied in several fields. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree and Kung Fu Man's source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The previous consensus still holds. Kung Fu Man's source analysis didn't mention the source that I added and mentioned in the AfD discussion -- 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. Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now. I may come back to this later, but I feel like there is room for expansion with the sourcing this article has right now. If it can't be for whatever other reason that gets brought then I will lean towards redirect (merge). That being said, has anyone checked for Japanese sources yet? Just thought would be worth mentioning...... Captain Galaxy 19:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.destructoid.com/blinky-inky-pinky-and-clyde-a-small-onomastic-study/ and https://kotaku.com/pac-man-ghosts-are-smarter-than-you-think-1683857357 prove reliable sources give them significant coverage. Dream Focus 20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Despite BLAR-ing it (and still feeling BLAR is a positive motion), I feel the found sources now do indicate some notability. I would however suggest to any editors currently not engaged in other projects to work the sources in, as "well it's on the AfD page!" doesn't really give a good indication especially four years later, and not in light of improving standards.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Destructoid reference was in the section you deleted. I think the information is better portrayed in a table than just text in the article. Does anyone else have an opinion on this section? [2] Dream Focus 21:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]