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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Packy and Marlon[edit]

Little content, no valid stub Church of emacs (Talk) 17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has little content because it was just createdMr415 (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy A quick google search indicates however weird it sounds, it actually might be a valid article topic. I suggest we userfy it, so it can be worked on until the article is representable and ready to be moved into mainspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Little content" is not a valid reason for deletion. I'm not sure why the nominator feels this is not a valid stub. There's no reason to userfy either, it's fine in the article space. Pagra shtak 00:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My instinct was to go for a Redirect to List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games per WP:PRODUCT as the game clearly existed, but didn't appear notable. However this and this provides reliable sources confirming notability. So, it's a Keep, and I'll work those refs into the article later. SilkTork *^YES! 00:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update. References inserted. SilkTork *^YES! 20:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the refs found by SilkTork, including an article from the NYT. The newcomer who wrote the article really should have been able to find it--but if not, the much more experienced nominator should certainly have been able to also. But that's what happens when placing an afd only eighteen minutes after the article was created. DGG (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or redirect to the list of SNES games, one of the above sources is a press release which is explicitly not applicable in demonstrating notability. Although this is not a typical game and therefore will not resemble a typical game article, if the only information about it is the result of this study (which is the only thing I can find any reference to) then the article's a permastub waiting to happen. It may be more appropriate to include this information in an article on good health promoting video games, but nothing which suggests a full article can be created via multiple independent sources has been presented or found with my own searches. Someone another 13:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:N, and passes it with colours flying. I see no reason not to follow the usual standards in this case. Wily D 15:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article needs more work, it can be done to an extent that this article can remain on this encyclopedia. GVnayR (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly exists and seems notable enough. It needs work but I agree with GVnayR that the article can remain on this Encyclopedia Nintendofootball (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are iffy, but most super nintendo games usually have coverage. It might require someone who does some digging through old magazines, or maybe even foreign ones. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2008 (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.