Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wally Bear and the NO! Gang


 * 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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). (jarbarf) (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wally Bear and the NO! Gang

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unlicensed NES game, probably NN. Only possible claim to notability is it's review by the Angry Video Game Nerd, but that per se may not be a valid assertion. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw, per USA Today review, should be cited in article if possible. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a licensed game, nor the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this nomination is honestly a bit baffling to me. We have articles on other unlicensed NES games that have survived AfDs (Spiritual Warfare and other Wisdom Tree games) and this one is certainly more notable than they are.  Homebrew games are one thing, but this one was actually published and sold in stores. JuJube (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This game has been discussed in well-known online sources, including Seanbaby's website (see ). Here's another review from a website that has been around for over 10 years and that I would generally consider a reliable source on NES-related issues. I'm sure some published sources could also be found if someone has access to video game magazines (not Nintendo Power, obviously, since they only covered licensed NES games) from the era when the game was released. *** Crotalus *** 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The cover for the game was also ranked fifth by in a list of top ten worst covers by Gamespy. --76.66.189.163 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't qualify as non-trivial coverage Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 23:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The phrase "non-trivial" or any permutation thereof does not appear in the verifiability policy you cite here. *** Crotalus *** 02:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Was an actual published video game... appears to be notable enough. --03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply being published is not an assertion of notability. Not all published books and films qualify as notable, why are video games any different? Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This game was notable for keeping young children away from recreational drugs. Someone should be working hard on this article so that it may become a featured article someday instead of being deleted. GVnayR (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I don't understand what licensing has to do with it. Actually, I'd say that any non-homebrew NES game (i.e., was developed by a company and sold commercially) is going to be notable. This one especially has plenty of coverage; in addition to the modern retro reviews, I found a USA Today article about the game from 1991 (it's difficult, of course, to find print sources that are that old, especially in video game magazines where we'd expect to find the most material). This surely qualifies. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no citation for the claim that a Nancy Reagan trademark affected the naming of the game. This topic does not have more than transient interest. Racepacket (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But notability is not temporary... &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.