Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munch Man

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 01:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Munch Man

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

Deprodded a month ago with editor claiming that print sources could be found. Ain't nothing happened, so it's time to go or get off the pot. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Through a lot of research, I found these sources. There may very well be others out there.

Schwartz, Steve (November 1982). "Munch Man". 99'er Magazine: 39. strategy and opinion at http://i51.tinypic.com/iyecyx.jpg
"Munch Man". Personal Computer Games Magazine: 69. review at http://i54.tinypic.com/2yuirso.jpg
"Munch Man". 99'er Magazine: 42. December 1982. states that Quyen Ton of San Francisco, CA, was inducted into their 99'er Hall of Fame with a Munch Man score of 293,970. The magazine inducts three people each month for various games.

I'd also like to note that 99'er ran a full page artwork of the game on page 27 of the same issue, seen here. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the deprodder's comment that the game was well-covered at the time. It's no surprise, though, that few online sources can be found. I'm going to go with Keep since this was one of the TI's marquee titles and one of the more interesting Pac-Man clones. Powers ^T 22:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the print sources found. –MuZemike 13:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources available. Has potential for expansion. - hahnch e n 15:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going with delete on this one. I don't think two short articles, even in print, is enough to demonstrate notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a contemporary online review at Allgame help? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It definitely helps, but I'm still going with delete. Given we have only 3–4 reliable sources with varying degrees of coverage, I don't think this passes the threshold for notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3-4 is pretty good for a 30-year-old game, and usually two is considered enough. Powers ^T 02:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its enough to warrant an entire article. It would likely result in a permastub. For comparison, Parsec (video game) received a 3-page review in an issue of 99'er. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not ideal, there's nothing wrong with an article like this being a stub. The article's chances of expanding are irrelevant to notability, unless keeping it separate hurts a parent topic. I don't believe that is the case here.
Regardless, with the sources, I think it could be start class. There is also the chance that there are further print sources from it's time of release that have yet to turn up. Very unlikely, I admit, but not every piece of printed material has made its way to the internet. I've been quite surprised by the information on older games I've found from buying video game books at Amazon and Half-Priced Books. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think the 3 or so sources we have are enough to warrant an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2011 (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.