Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pac-Man Arrangement

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The result was withdrawn. czar 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man Arrangement[edit]

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

Non-notable arcade game whose supposed claim to fame is a trivial name glitch. Search turned up no third-party sources, while article is written like a game guide and has remained unsourced since the day of its creation an entire decade ago. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Video games that are part of one of the most famous series in video game history, not only initially released worldwide in multiple regions, but also additionally ported multiple times to multiple consoles within multiple anthological collections are triply notable real-world products. While some of the detail within the article might be argued to be fancruft, the product itself is a clearly notable subject deserving of an article. Deletion should not be used as a substitute for cleanup, so the argument that the article is written poorly is only an argument that the article should be improved, not an argument to delete. —Lowellian (reply) 12:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pac-Man video games. Very surprised by the above rationale—articles are not presumed notable for being parts of a series, and in fact, many games in a series can be spin-offs or minor releases. The adequate answer is to cover the game in proportion to its sourcing, which the nom correctly noted that this game has none. It has been covered in some recent compilations, so there's the choice of whether to cover it in the PM Museum or PM Collection articles, but suffice it to say that that there is little coverage of this specific game, and that it can be covered adequately in summary style at the extended list article. @Beemer69, I recommend uncontroversially redirecting such articles to a list or parent dev instead of going to AfD—it saves everyone the time, as a title in a notable series will always be a useful redirect to wherever it is actually covered on WP. czar 20:11, 24 January 2017 (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.