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.
Laundry-list of trivial references. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Keepand speedy close. WP:FIVE is not policy, please cite a policy-based reason for deletion. Last AFD closed only a week ago as keep. Nothing has changed since then. JulesH18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The five pillars are the core philosophies of Wikipedia. It forms the basis of all the policies. It will suffice. Also, the last AfD closed two months ago, and the only change since then has been the addition of even more trivia. --Eyrian 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a bad day. Ignore me. Still, WP:FIVE is *not* policy, and does not form the basis of policies either (you may be thinking of m:Foundation issues, which does form the basis of policies). It is a summary of policy, which is (I think) in this case misleading about what the actual policy is. Trivia is not outlawed from inclusion in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOT, the policy which comes closest to doing so. JulesH19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note that speedy close is not a valid option. This is a collection of loosely associated items seeking to capture every reference to or appearance of Pac-Man, or a sound from Pac-Man, or something that in some way in the opinion of an editor resembles Pac-Man. The things on this list have no commonality beyond a reference of greater or lesser triviality to the video game. The list does not add to our knowledge or understanding of Pac-Man, the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, their relation to each other or the real world. The only thing of any real significance here is the TV show, which already has its own article. Otto471118:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waka-waka-waka....delete as a indiscriminate list of non-notable references. Unless someone can prove with a well sourced, non-listy article that Pac-Man has played a large role in influencing (and not just being referred to) in the cultural canon. CaveatLectorTalk21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep as per WP:SENSE. It could use an introductory lead, but the subject is highly notable. The fact that Wikipedia isn't a pop culture magazine doesn't mean that we should ignore salient cultural influences entirely. --XDanielx22:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the person said above, use common sense! The subject ishighly notable. As WP:SUMMARY says, extra stuff should be split of when making the original article too long. Putting in the oodles of cultural references into the pacman article would make it far too long. MathmoTalk00:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pac-Man is indeed notable. That does not mean that a list of every time Pac-Man is referred to in any other medium is also notable. Otto471101:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The argument for the notability of the article in question does not depend on each listed item being notable. It instead depends on the subject of Pacman's cultural influence being notable. Just look at the biographies of famous individuals for well-established precedents - Bush's article notes that the young Bush once was a cheerleader, and Bertrand Russell's article describes how Russell was often lonely as a child. Obviously we would not give such facts their own articles, but it is entirely acceptable to note such facts within an article. Notability guidelines apply to the subject of an article, not the contents of the article; the latter has its own separate and considerably looser set of guidelines. To anyone well acquainted with video game history, the cultural influence of Pac-Man is highly notable. --XDanielx06:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Everybody knows it's notable' is not a valid establisher of notability. If there are reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic "Pac-Man in popular culture" then bring them on and let's get a decent article. I don't believe there are such sources. Certainly none are presented in the list. What is presented is a list of every mention of the words "Pac-Man" in any medium ever. Certainly as part of a biography of GWB mentioning his cheerleading is reasonable. But an article that sought to collect every time the words "George W. Bush" were mentioned in a TV show or movie, or every time a soundbite from GWB was used in a show or a song, would not stand. Indeed, a list article of songs that mention GWB was deleted. And really, is there honestly a solid basis of comparison between actual human beings and a fictional video game character? Otto471112:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want sources, try this or this - just a few first-page references from a 10-second Google search. Regardless, I think it's reasonable to say that Pac-man's cultural influence is notable as per WP:SENSE. The Pac-Man in popular culture isn't meant to detail every instance of "Pac-Man" being spoken or written. Very loosely related list items can be removed (the list is fairly long as is, and it wouldn't hurt to condense it); deleting the article is not the solution. --XDanielx19:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not count links; let's instead use common sense. It's only to be expected that "X has had a substantial cultural impact" articles are hard to find. Try doing a similar search for Chuck Norris for example - the results are very similar. Obviously Chuck's cultural impact is enormous, but you're not going to find hundreds of scholarly articles on JSTOR exclusively affirming that. It's difficult to find many such sources because cultural references from credible sources tend to be blips, and it's difficult to filter through those articles. Unless the vast majority of the contents of the page in question are entirely untruthful (an extremely dubious scenario), the article itself speaks for the cultural impact of Pac-Man. The cultural significance of Pac-Man is so huge that companies have risked lawsuits (e.g., this) and accepted undesirable licenses (source) from the copyright holders just to be able to use the character in more modern video games. The evidence is everywhere; I don't think we need an explicit statement from the Harvard Law Review to back up the enormity of Pac-Man's cultural bearing. --xDanielxTalk06:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I assume people saying this is notable mean Pac-Man is notable, that doesn't mean these examples are notable. If there are any notable ones they should be mentioned in the main article. Crazysuit00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect and Trim I could see some elements could be notable if they are sourced. Lack of sources is a another for not keeping it.--JForget02:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The five pillars are more important than that. They are the principles of Wikipedia. If something is getting in the way of following those principles, it should be ignored/removed. --Eyrian 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Trivia doesn't merit its own article; used wisely, it can add insights to an existing article. Trivia, like salt, can be used moderately to add flavor to an article; if you have long lists of trivia, you have something so salty that the original article is unrecognizable. Yes, Pac-Man is notable, but like Crazysuit said, these mentions are not. This is what gives IPC articles a bad name, a list of every reference someone has spotted of something that would be remembered without all these forgettable references. Mandsford00:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then the conclusion would be , Keep, and edit. and individual items would be discussed on the article talk page.DGG (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO. These pop culture references have nothing in common other than the fact that they happen to include Pac-Man. Unsourced listcruft that is thereby unnotable and trivia to boot. María(críticame) 13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft and possibly violating copyright of this site: [1]. The subject is not inherently as mess, and I urge that it not to be salted. 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, articles are generally only salted if they're repeatedly recreated (meaning essentially the same material). --Eyrian 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources for notability of the subjectGames might be gory but they make us smarter By Dan Sabbagh, NYTimes December 9, 2005, Everything Bad is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter by Steven Johnson Penguin, 2006, ISBN 9781594481949. Just a start, of course. Carlossuarez46, I assume you will now change your !vote to a keep. DGG (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The linked article you claim supports the notability of "Pac-Man in popular culture" includes nothing beyond the line "Twenty-five years ago the best games on offer were as basic as Pacman." The idea that this serves as a source that "Pac-Man in popular culture" is a notable topic is ludicrous. I haven't read the book. Have you? Is Pac-Man even mentioned in it? Otto471103:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones07:50, 6 August 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.