Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo products


 * 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. Several commenters have suggested that this topic is notable if the content were reworked, replaced with improved content, or split into different articles, and these arguments against deletion have been confusingly put beside bolded "delete" !votes. As I note that one of the participants has already drafted replacements based on this content, I judge that not only is there not consensus to delete, there is consensus to keep in some form. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

List of Nintendo products

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Badly formatted, mostly unsourced, and redundant with all of the Nintendo console game pages that list the same games. I attempted to cleanup the article earlier (the tags on there date back to 2010, so this as been an issue for nearly a decade), but quickly found out that I couldn't find an ideal way to do so and gave up. If the list isn't outright deleted or redirected, then at least the discussion here will hopefully find a way to improve it enough to prevent that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - There currently is no comprehensive overview listing games published by Nintendo. Other pages list all games on the respective video game platforms, not just those by Nintendo. Those pages often have their own issues, either they are incomplete, or they have formatting issues and thus do not let you easily display all games published by Nintendo. Somebody looking for titles published by Nintendo doesn't want to use "STRG+F" on dozens of different pages to find what he's looking for, especially when those pages do not take regional publishing efforts into account, which this page does. At the same time, those pages have no sources at all, whereas sources are continually implemented on this page. We already cleaned up the sections from GameCube till Switch, and a similar cleanup is still progressing for the 3DS section. It's true that the other sections still require a bit more work. Instead of just deleting the article, like you did, you could help us improving it by further eliminating the Western bias and inconsistent organisation in the NES to N64 sections, or by adding additional sources. The template for these improvements is given in the Wii/GameCube sections. ~ DanielFreed (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory for this purpose. "Ease of use", is not a valid keep argument. See WP:ITSUSEFUL  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From your link: ""usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." Given that we are talking about one of the largest video game companies, there is a natural interest in seeing what this company produced and provide an overview linking to specific product pages. Given that we have similar lists for basically any other relevant video game company (Activision, Electronic Arts, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Sony, etc.), it would be very strange to omit such a list for Nintendo, or to simply link to other pages listing all games on the system. The aim of this specific page is to provide an overview of all Nintendo products while also providing selected other information, something which those general console lists fail at. ~ DanielFreed (talk)) 11:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you impersonating my signature? Aren't there guidelines against this? ~ Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, I just used it as a template and copy/pasted it for this discussion to show who made the comment (i.e. I needed it to add my name and the date). I just changed the colour code now. Honestly didn't know you personalised it. Feel free to change my signature in this discussion if you are still unhappy with it. Seeing now there's an easier way to add signatures by using four ~. DanielFreed (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY, fails WP:LISTN (No sources are talking about all of this at once as a single group), and redundant to more discrete and specific lists that we already have. -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "No sources are talking about all of this at once as a single group" - There are quite a few articles which do. Either articles talking about the company as a whole, or articles talking about the best games produced by Nintendo, or other articles looking at Nintendo's products over the years. Please check at your link especially this section: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". This list certainly meets the notability criterion, especially given that there are similar lists for most other relevant gaming companies for which there aren't articles akin to the aforementioned. ~ <b style="color: #629220;">DanielFreed</b> (<b style="color: #G18739;">talk</b>) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also check (7) on your link: "Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted." In fact, those are very common on here, and given the company we are talking here, WP:LISTN is no issue.DanielFreed (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm honestly baffled by the delete votes on this. Every single video game company with an article on Wikipedia has a listing of their works, and if the list is too large to be fit within the company's own article (as is obviously the case with Nintendo), it's split off into an article of its own. We do the exact same thing with articles on authors, comic book publishers, film production companies, musicians, etc. It's a natural and logical thing to do. I've never seen anyone object to this practice, and if there's a reason why an exception should be made for Nintendo, no one has given it yet.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You give a keep vote but don't suggest how we fix it in its current state (part of the reason I nominated it). Those other "company product lists" are slightly different, as they are way better formatted and more clear in its direction (video games only, such as List of Square Enix video games) How about we make a List of Nintendo franchises page and just list by series instead of each individual game? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We already had such a list, which was fused with this article as it provides more in-depth information. It's also difficult to determine 'Nintendo franchises'. Would you still list Bayonetta? Project Zero? How about Pokemon, is that a Nintendo franchise when it's a separate company in which Nintendo just holds a stake? Also, solutions to improve this article are basically named at the start of the article as well as on the Discussion page of the article.DanielFreed (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "more in-depth information" is not an improvement when it just looks like somebody dumped a variety of different tables and lists into the page without any effort of cleaning it up, which is my whole issue with it. As for what would count as Nintendo franchise, wouldn't that same question apply here? Why are Mega Man games listed on the page here when it's a Capcom property? Also, those improvement tags are neatly a decade old, which is not something you should be pointing out as an argument, as it's not a good thing. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 03:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because the tags have been there since 2010, that doesn't mean that nothing has been done about the issues since then. It was only last year that tables were created for most sections, even though they have yet to be finished for the NES-N64 sections. But if you look at the GameCube to Switch sections, the issues named in the tags have been resolved already. You may really want to take a look at the Discussion page to see what the current work-to-do list looks like. Also, Mega Man is by definition of the article scope in the list as the NES version was a Nintendo product in Europe. Of course, this should have been clarified by the author through some note. All in all, this is nothing that cannot be improved, and is just in line with similar lists for Square Enix, Sony, or Microsoft.DanielFreed (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dissident93, please read WP:NOTCLEANUP.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Nintendo, largely per WP:TNT. There are clearly some sub-sections that would be reasonable stand-alone lists, but as a whole this is indiscriminate and fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate on why such a list fails those criteria for Nintendo, yet doesn't fail the criteria for all other video game companies which feature a similar list.DanielFreed (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See other stuff exists. This is not a valid argument to keep. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Check the link you posted: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid." Also from the article you linked: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." Points referring to notability policies and guidelines have also already been mentioned above. Ideally a discussion on the Talk page would have preceded the discussion about a deletion, as I don't really see how else you would want to structure the page nor do I see it 'beyond repair'. It obviously requires some work. DanielFreed (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples? There's no List of Sony products or List of Atari products or List of Sega products. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are, though under a slightly different title: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atari_SA_video_games and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_Interactive_Entertainment_video_games, or for EA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electronic_Arts_games, and Ubisoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubisoft_games. There's also a list of THQ products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_THQ_games, a list of products by Rare Ltd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_developed_by_Rare, a list for Activision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Activision_video_games, and a list for Namco Bandai titles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bandai_Namco_video_games. Or is your point that you only want to restrict it to video games and remove the references to Nintendo's toys? That would be a relatively small change compared to what is suggested here, which is deleting the page as a whole because the games are listed elsewhere.DanielFreed (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And all of those are listed by publisher, this list is just a (very incomplete) collection of any game released on a Nintendo platform. It should either be trimmed to be Nintendo-published only games, or deleted/redirected for being way too broad of a scope. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you've taken a look at what this page actually is. The first sentence on the page basically describes it: "This is a list of products published by Nintendo". Thus it's obviously not a page that is supposed to show any game released on a Nintendo platform, nor is there currently any indication that it attempts to be that. Please really take a look at the page as well as the Talk page. Perhaps you want to suggest the use of a different title instead of the deletion of the page? DanielFreed (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was immediately clear to me upon looking at the article that it covers products published by Nintendo, not all games on Nintendo platforms.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this supposed to be an argument? Changing the page title does nothing, as the page is still an indiscriminate collection of information in concept, because it wants to list every single game (and product) ever released on a Nintendo platform on a single page. It either needs a major cleanup to only go with Nintendo-published/owned games+products, or become a disambuation page for the list of Nintendo games on PLATFORM articles. I don't see any other option that would be better than these two, and both of you who support to keep the page have yet to offer a solid suggestion other than "similar articles exists" (which I pointed out that is not really the case, as they differ in scope). ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I say this for the third time now, please take a look at what this page is as you seemingly have no clear idea about it at the moment. I am not sure if it makes much sense to continue discussing as you still insist that it "it wants to list every single game (and product) ever released on a Nintendo platform on a single page", which clearly is not the case. You suggest it "needs a major cleanup to only go with Nintendo-published/owned games+products" - but it already is exactly that. Nobody disputes, however, that it does need a major cleanup to sort the NES/SNES/N64 as well as the handheld sections. But, and here I say it again, had you taken a look at the Talk page, then you would have seen that this has already been noticed and is starting to get tackled. Please excuse me if I repeat myself, but I'd strongly encourage you to take a look at the page first before continuing this discussion because it's becoming very evident that you haven't done that yet. Please also check my the comments in this discussion. My previous comment, to which you just replied, should have made it pretty clear that it's not a page "to list every single game (and product) ever released on a Nintendo platform". DanielFreed (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Either this should deleted or completely reworked (in which case, it should probably still be TNT'd). I love the idea of a list of non-video game Nintendo products, and don't understand why this list includes an indiscriminate collection of video games. List of Nintendo video games or List of Nintendo franchises would be much better titles for such an article anyway. I expected this list to consist of physical products, such as toys and hardware, not software. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on something like this? User:Maplestrip/List of Nintendo products ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate why you think it's a list which "includes an indiscriminate collection of video games", because it obviously is just a list of video games published by Nintendo. Also, from what I see, the page was renamed from "List of video games published by Nintendo" to the current title at some point, probably to also include the toys which aren't video games (as you can see on the previous deletion discussion which is linked on the Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_video_games_published_by_Nintendo). Even if you wanted to rename the article again, there's no need for a full deletion as the information listed at this point is still a great foundation, it just needs better formatting. It's not like any other games or a different set of games would be listed if the page was created from scratch, nor would there be a better option than to sort the games by release date and platform. DanielFreed (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, perhaps List of video games published by Nintendo and List of Nintendo products should be split? In such case, I think the former should use subsections based on something other than console. I see a lot of options to re-use aspects of this list, but as it stands now it simply doesn't work. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be split, but that would only affect the small first section. Where exactly do you see the issue in sorting the games by game system though, why exactly do you think "it simply doesn't work"? From your reply I understand that you do not want a single large list of all games either. So what would be the options for subsections which you would suggest? DanielFreed (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. I tried to use a different set-up for such a list, but I was unable to figure anything out that would work better. (See this for what I had in mind). I do think the list should be split into two, and I now agree that something like this would work. I'm going to post my two drafts on the article's talk page, because it's probably too confusing right now. ~ Mable ( chat ) 14:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I came very close to closing this as a no consensus, but I will give it another week and see if we can reach something resembling consensus.
 * Delete or at least refactor into appropriate lists A complete list of all products across all markets is clearly not acceptable per WP:NOT, but a list of the video game consoles they developed, and the list of first-party games they developed across platforms, also are reasonable separate lists. --M asem (t) 14:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 *  Split or keep - I think the article should be split into separate articles of a more manageable size, but barring that, I think the article should be kept, as combining this article with something else would make the Nintendo article absolutely humongous. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Split - The article contains valuable information as a list of Nintendo games, but it is way too large of a page to manage. The organization is highly inconsistent, with some game sections being divided into tables and others being freely distributed lists. The page will only continue to get incredibly large with Nintendo's increasing amount of game releases. However, this page is very useful as an archive of a list of overall Nintendo games. If the article is split, the information will be easier to manage and therefore easier to read as well. User:TheAwesome21 —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Split - Mable  created two drafts in their userspace to replace the current list. These are:
 * User:Maplestrip/List of Nintendo products
 * User:Maplestrip/List of video games published by Nintendo
 * I think such a split would reduce the scope of the current list, even though the main issues the current list has would be moved to 'List of video games published by Nintendo'.DanielFreed (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note duplicate !vote czar  03:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see the purpose to the split products list. Even if it were tightened to hardware (exclude toys), what purpose does it serve and what sources cover Nintendo hardware/physical products as a group that shouldn't simply be covered in the appropriate section of the Nintendo parent article? As for the other, the distinction of being published by Nintendo is so vague as to be meaningless, which is no wonder why it isn't covered as a set in sources. Lists of Nintendo games and Nintendo video game consoles should together be sufficient for the purposes of listing Nintendo's products. No secondary sources worth merging. (not watching, please )  czar  03:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * These points have all been mostly covered in the previous discussion. First, there's absolutely no vagueness in what games Nintendo has published. Second, because of the position of Nintendo in the video game market there are more than enough sources which cover their games as a set. Such lists of creative works exist for pretty much for all notable (and even less notable) video game firms, and are explicitly permitted as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Lists of Nintendo games is for all games on Nintendo platforms, not just for those by Nintendo.DanielFreed (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, they haven't. Re: vagueness of publisher status, take any random game from the latter half of the proposed split list. What do sources have to say about the relation between James Bond 007 (1998 video game) and any of the games surrounding it in that list? Re: "more than enough sources which cover their games as a set"—ya, which is why we have lists for Nintendo-developed games. If you hold that Nintendo-published is its own meaningful designation, now is the time where you show those sources that show that specific set. Lists of Nintendo games already covers the subset of Nintendo-developed games, as Nintendo did not publish for non-Nintendo platforms. It would be duplicative to spin out a separate, single list. (Also, a single list would be unwieldy and need to be subdivided anyway.) czar  13:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have a list of Nintendo-developed games as that is not really identifiable. Is a game like Hey! Pikmin Nintendo-developed or developed by a third party? Same for games such as Steel Diver, Tank Troopers or Metroid Prime 4. That's why there is a list of Nintendo-published games. Same for most other major publishers. To your other question: What do sources have to say about the relation between James Bond 007 and other Nintendo games on that list? - They unsurprisingly go on to talk about Nintendo's titles. Your argument that it would be duplicative is also not very sound: shall we remove the Beatles discography because we have lists for albums released in the years 1970-1980?DanielFreed (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just explained how we do—developers are sortable in the Lists of Nintendo games—and I also explained why it doesn't make sense to split out some super list from those separate lists. Your Beatles question is "other stuff"—if sources warrant separate treatment, then sure. But this AfD is about Nintendo products as a set and the onus for sourcing the Nintendo-published list is on you and those who assert that sources treat Nintendo-published games as a set. If you have sources, yesterday is when you show them. czar  16:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you haven't really explained why it doesn't make sense to split off Nintendo games from that list so far. Also, it certainly is not "other stuff" when it was to show that simply saying "it's duplicative" is not an argument. And major gaming platforms, such as IGN (http://www.ign.com/articles/the-top-125-nintendo-games-of-all-time) and Kotaku (https://kotaku.com/my-favorite-nintendo-is-weird-nintendo-1822460818), or non-gaming platforms such as Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/nintendo-switch-vs-ps4-xbox-one-2017-11?op=1&r=US&IR=T) treat Nintendo-published games as a set.DanielFreed (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Try the section that mentions the word "unwieldy" above. I believe I've been clear on all above points. If you have an issue with a Beatles list, feel free to spin out a separate discussion. Your IGN link refers to games on Nintendo's platforms, just as there are equivalents for the PlayStation and Xbox platforms. (The IGN even lists the three points of inclusion criteria.) Can't even say it better... The Kotaku or Business Insider sources do not cover Nintendo-published games as a set either, so not sure what you're reading there. I'm familiar with the sourcing. I think IGN's summary is the common perception, and it lends to organizing lists by developer and not by publisher.  czar  20:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said I have an issue with the Beatles list, I only said that your point that it's duplicative is not a very strong argument against this list here. Please also check the IGN link again, it's not as you're claiming about games on Nintendo's platforms in general, it's essentially about Nintendo-developed games and games using Nintendo IPs (which essentially boils down to Nintendo-published titles). I'm not sure if you checked the Kotaku and Business Insider links, but they essentially also talk about games published by Nintendo when referring to 'Nintendo games' - not just games developed by Nintendo. Games such as Hey! Pikmin, Tank Troopers, Bayonetta 2, Devil's Third, Pocket Card Jockey etc. are typically considered to be "Nintendo games", despite being either co-developed by third party developers, entirely developed by third party developers, or only being published by Nintendo in some regions and not others. Same is true for other publishers, which is why these lists are usually organised by publisher and not by developer here on Wikipedia. There'd need to be a good argument for why this should be different all of a sudden.DanielFreed (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The subset of "Nintendo-published games" is unwieldy and filled with all sorts of minor entries that we will struggle to even confirm as Nintendo-published (already visible in the Mable-split list linked above). The subset of "Nintendo-developed-or-had-a-hand-in" is also unwieldy but in a different way, hence why IGN had to set a list of caveats. The question of how to sensibly display that information is already covered within Lists of Nintendo games, in which games developed, published, or helped by Nintendo are listed in totality with their peers. these lists are usually organised by publisher and not by developer here on Wikipedia This isn't true. We typically list all items that would count as productions of the subject, but not when the list is hundreds of items... The chaos in your developed+published lists linked above shows why. Hence the question is what form presents the information best, and... back to my original points. Ya, I read the links and I already said that they were called "Nintendo games" because they were on a Nintendo platform, not because Nintendo published them. The "split" !vote is meaningless because the actual work here is deciding the content of the split. And if the intent is to separate into games and hardware, my original comment already linked where those lists already exist, which is why I have continued to hold that the "products" list under discussion is redundant. I don't think your examples are persuading and I can't say anything more to you that wouldn't repeat myself, so I think I'm done here. czar  22:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "we will struggle to even confirm as Nintendo-published (already visible in the Mable-split list linked above)" -> That's not really true. It's easily determinable whether a game is published by Nintendo or not, while it's not easily determinable whether Nintendo developed a game. "these lists are usually organised by publisher and not by developer here on Wikipedia This isn't true. We typically list all items that would count as productions of the subject, but not when the list is hundreds of items..." -> Please find the links to lists of games published by other companies which I posted above, you'll easily see it's not true what you are saying. "Ya, I read the links and I already said that they were called "Nintendo games" because they were on a Nintendo platform, not because Nintendo published them." -> Please read the links again, they are not about games published on a Nintendo platform, they are about 'games from Nintendo' - which is mainly seen as 'games published by Nintendo' as you will also see from the examples named (which is for example shown as the Kotaku article even mentions Pocket Card Jockey, a game which was only published by Nintendo outside of Japan). "I don't think your examples are persuading and I can't say anything more to you that wouldn't repeat myself, so I think I'm done here." -> The problem seems to be that you equate "Nintendo games" to "games on a Nintendo platform", which this isn't really about, and which is why this list is absolutely not redundant as it provides an overview of the creative works of a major gaming company and thus is also the topic of independent sources - even if they use the less precise term "Nintendo games" to refer to "Nintendo-published games".DanielFreed (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see the difficulty in ascertaining a game's publisher. I come across sources establishing that information all the time, though I'll admit I usually don't think to add them to the relevant list articles. More important, as interesting as the above discussion was, I still don't understand why we would want to specifically exclude Nintendo from having a list of their published games. And having been a frequenter of the games-related articles and talk pages for a while now, I'm certainly not convinced that there's a sentiment that all lists of games published by specific companies should be eliminated.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. The article as it stands is rubbish, but for an outside reader who is only vaguely aware of video games, an list that briefly summarises the NES, GameBoy, SNES, Wii etc is a perfectly acceptable topic. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted per Deletion review/Log/2018 April 8, with no obligation to wait another whole week before reclosing by an admin.
 * Split out individual articles & turn this page into a "list of lists" Content is notable but article is unwieldy. Splitting out each individual list and leaving a barebones article with a list of lists and lots of "main page" templates will be more useful. . With whole pages decided to each console, you could then have sections for different types of products like games, feelies, hand-held accessories etc.--Coin945 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC) --Coin945 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia isn't a directory. Optionally recreate as a list of lists. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.