Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munchman (tabletop electronic game)

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 12:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Munchman (tabletop electronic game)

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

Sources are forums and a Flickr picture, which is apparently enough to dodge prod. No non-trivial sources found. Page has almost entirely been untouched since creation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:47, 16 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) 01:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I found this price guide which would indicate people collect this, but I can't find significant coverage about this device. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Pac-man#Remakes and sequels. Given some weak sources that have been identified, I think it's enough to justify inclusion in the Pac-man article, but there's not the coverage needed to establish notability for a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pac-man#Remakes and sequels. There really isn't enough coverage, or content to warrant a separate article. However, some of the content may be relevant to the Pac-man article. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - has some decent coverage in this book (I have the book) but that's only one source..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was the original creator of the article (benkid77). I'm sorry due to being busy in real life I have not had time to improve some articles I previously created (which is why I previously retired - lack of time). I think this article is a borderline case. For the moment I have added a reference and ISBN number from the book stated above which does cover this game. I'm not sure if I'll be able to find any other references. Hopefully that may be enough to prevent immenent deletion. If so I'll see if the article can be improved any further at all. I can find a few sites on the web discussing this game, but probably they would fall short of the more rigorous requirement of authorative sources. Not sure if these other sources would be enough in conjunction with the above book. I'm in my place of work right now. Although, I'll have another scout around this evening if I get a chance. Thanks all. Rept0n1x (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK I've now addressed some of the issues and improved the article a bit. I've added a few new sources today per the deletion debate. (Two of which are books with ISBN numbers. one is the price guide and the other is the TV Cream book as mentioned above). To address the nominators concerns, I have removed the flickr picture reference as I agree this is not suitable for a reference. I should also note that there were no forum references. One reference was admittedly a blog, but I'm not using that to establish notability, simply as an informative review of this product. I can see at a glance the page in question does have a "forum" header, but that's just a link to the forum section of the site and not a forum in its own right. (Although there are user comments under the blog.) I thought I should clarify that. I know it's still not an authoritative source but a professionally-written blog is a bit better than a forum post IMHO.

I do understand the arguments regarding merging, but I've now expanded the article a bit and added more information. Some other standalone articles such as Hangly-Man and Monster Munch are much more similar to the PacMan video games (one is just a bootleg hack of the original). They are also video games. Conversely, this article about "Grandstand Munchman" is about a tabletop electronic game, which is not really the same as a video game. I argue that it is distinctive in its own right, particularly because of its unique design. Also the main pacman article is already quite long. I do agree that coverage of this Munchman product is limited, but I strongly think that there is scope for even further future expansion and improvement of this article. I also suggest that the article already contains enough information to justify its existence as a standalone article, certainly it is already larger than many other video game and electronic game related articles. This game IMHO was a cultural phenomenon at the time of its release, as illustrated by the other references I have added today, not least by the fact that it is on display in the retro collection at Plymouth University, England. I don't have any further time to work on the article at the moment, but I hope my few improvements and additional refs added today are enough to save the article. I'll now leave it to the closing admin. I should also say that despite the additional weak sources added, I've added a "refimprove" tag to assist in eventually address the articles remaining weakness. Of course I think that should be left in place should the article survive, until the issue is fully addressed. Thanks Rept0n1x (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This evening, I had another look around for further coverage of this electronic game. As a result I have added another three further references, two of which provide a paragraph on this particular game and another one which simply mentions the unofficial Software simulator of this game available for Windows systems. Whilst I agree that further sources are not easy to find, some coverage is certainly out there from secondary sources. I do think there's enough coverage and references on this game now to merit an article, more so than many similar articles. Due to my additions to the article over the last two days I think at the very least the article now deserves a re-evaluation. Thanks again. Rept0n1x (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Following the cleanup, I think this article adds to the encyclopedia. Not all the sources are that good, but some are clearly reliable. - hahnch e n 20:10, 3 October 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.