Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games licensed by Nintendo


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Chick Bowen 18:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

List of games licensed by Nintendo
Impossible to maintain list with no verifilablity offered. Metros232 18:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not sure if I understand the nom here. The list looks rather short and well maintained to me. I also don't see any discussion on the talk page that would indicate problems or conflicts in maintaining this, nor does it seem very different from the +170 articles found in Category:Computer and video game lists. -- JJay 18:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are hundreds of games licensed by Nintendo out there though. This list is just the cusp of what is out there.  It focuses a lot on the arcade games and a few of the NES games, but doesn't include any of the other consoles such as 64 and Gamecube.  I think that a category suffices instead of a list.  Metros232 18:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This list is short because it's not even 5% complete. A complete list would have hundreds, if not upward of a thousand, entries. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (and, perhaps, create a category) I wasn't sure what to think until Metros's excellent explanation just popped up. Now, in my mind, it's clear. -- Kicking222 19:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to Nintendo's strong legal department, just about every single game produced for a Nintendo console/handheld would be on this list. Using catagories would be better.   Big E 1977  21:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and create a category, per Metro232. — Cuivi é  nen  ( talk • contribs ) , Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 21:07 UTC 
 * Delete; this list would eventually include thousands of entries, many of which won't merit articles. A better list would be a list of unlicensed games released on Nintendo systems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per JJay AND create a category, no need to destroy a perfectly good list at all. Jcuk 22:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and Do not categorize. EVERY game commercially released for a Nintendo system is licensed by Nintendo.  Any game that is not isn't notable enough for Wikipedia.  -- Grev 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Super Noah's Ark 3D and Bible Adventures beg to differ. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ---|>Newyorktimescrossword 02:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep please do not destroy good lists Yuckfoo 02:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Almost all games released on Nintendo consoles have been licensed by Nintendo, so that makes this list completely over-broad in its criteria. It'd be much easier to list notable games for Nintendo consoles that aren't licensed by Nintendo; that might be a much shorter list... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- ˑˑˑ 日 本 穣  Talk to Nihonjo  ε  16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as the list would contain every game ever released for a Nintendo platform, making the list completely unmanageable. If a list needs to be or should be maintained, it should be through categorization (which was designed for this kind of thing). ˑˑˑ 日 本 穣 Talk to Nihonjo  ε  16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as unmaintainable excessively long list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If kept, remove the red "no"s as they look like redlinks. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP is not replacement for company's website and neither it is database. Pavel Vozenilek 20:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A very redundant list, not unlike list of two-legged people. A list of Nintendo-console games that weren't licensed would be more interesting and useful. -Sean Curtin 03:04, 11 May 2006 (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.