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 KEEP. As correctly observed by Biggspowd, the notion that we should keep something because it was rejected from a 'main' article is indeed bunk. I would suggest that if a cleaned-up article were still unacceptable, that a better case for deletion would then be made. -Splash - tk 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Yet another trivia article that is almost all mentions and spoofs of Pac-Man. Any relevant information (from this article) should be inserted in the Pac-Man article. This isn't encyclopedic content, it's just a cluttered trivia list with very little notable things. Yes Pac-Man has been spoofed and mentioned alot: but so what? Just about everything popular (and in some cases: not popular) is in pop culture. That doesn't mean we need an article here about it. One example from the article: In an episode of the TV comedy series Friends the character Chandler Bing is given a Ms. Pac-Man machine, and is seen playing it several times. That might be interesting to some, but overall: it's just not that notable. RobJ1981 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Pac-Man article is 47 KB long, so this material certainly needed to be spun off. Which is not to say that this article/list couldn't use some work... -- Visviva 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not merge - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics and trivia sections are to be avoided. This is an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia, gathering together anything that mentions Pac-Man or things that remind editors of Pac-Man, with no regard to the importance or triviality of the reference to Pac-Man, the thing from which the reference is drawn or the real world. Maintaining this article to keep clutter out of the main article is not a valid reason for keeping. The solution to too much trivial crap in an article is to delete it from the article, not to spin it off into its own free-standing trivia article. Otto4711 13:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nominator recommends a large clean-up. So go ahead and clean up. Surely a request for a large clean-up does not need to come to a deletion forum and quality concerns should be first raised on the article's (currently unused) discussion page. Obviously Pac-Man has had notable appearances in popular culture. If, after clean-up, the list is too short to merit a stand-alone article, then discuss the merger on the main Pac-Man page. This is housekeeping not a deletion discussion. Canuckle 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't recommend a large cleanup, I recommend: notable information be merged back into the Pac-Man article. The rest is just trivia and cruft, not encyclopedic at all. RobJ1981 22:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Pac man is very promonint in Pop Culture. This article does need clean up however. DBZROCKS 22:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep highly notable subject; if you need to trim the article, go ahead and trim it. AFD is not the place to bring up minor cleanup issues. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a minor cleanup issue. As he has stated, there is no need for the article in the first place. TTN 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pac-Man is indeed a notable subject. That does not mean that every single appearance of Pac-Man or the name "Pac-Man" or somthing that kinda reminds somebody of something that looks like Pac-Man is equally notable. Otto4711 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The point of popular culture sections should be to describe the article's role in popular culture, not list every minor detail. There is especially no need for a break off article when the section should need three paragraphs at most. TTN 23:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason for that limit? -- Visviva 09:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Given proper care and feeding, I don't see any reason this couldn't become a featured list in due course. -- Visviva 04:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There is a building precedent that "in pop culture" articles are not suitable here, and the whole defense of "the main article is too long" is bunk, info like this should not be around in the first place. We are here to write articles, not a list of every time something was mentioned. Biggspowd 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless we're going to get rid of all pop-culture content, which would be nice, I don't see why we can't have topical lists of pop-culture content. What exactly about this material leads to such strong feelings? -- Visviva 09:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. The list needs to be shortened (remove one-off mentions of Pacman in other media), but the list itself should stay. AgentPeppermint 16:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.