Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Video Game Rating Act (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Truth in Video Game Rating Act
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

2006 attempt at legislation quickly died without comment from journalists. Fails guidelines about notability and not news. Jorahm (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous AfD and plenty of coverage over two years. Rusalkii  (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Nomination is a WP:VAGUEWAVE that fails to address existing sources about the topic that demonstrate its notability. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you've seen the article or the sources but there isn't enough here to write an article which is why the article is so abysmal. It doesn't meet WP:NOTNEWS because all of the coverage is from the moment it was proposed in August 2006 and even that coverage was a short burst of nothing. The bill (thankfully) died and didn't get more than another a single mention when the senator ran for President. Jorahm (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because the article is short does not mean there isn't more to be written. WP:NEXIST fallacy. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per plentiful third party coverage, and an apparent complete lack of understanding of NOTNEWS. Sergecross73   msg me  20:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rusalkii. The article could probably be improved, but there's definitely sufficient coverage in RS for WP:GNG.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Bill never actually came to the floor, was proposed as an extreme solution by an extreme conservative, and never had any chance to pass (thus the 'enacted by' field in the infobox is a complete lie). We don't have to have an article about every piece of legislation proposed by Congress.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of that has any bearing on whether it meets the WP:GNG or not. Sergecross73   msg me  04:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And whether it was an "extreme solution" also doesn't disqualify it for entry in the encyclopedia. Or should I say, inclusion does not equal endorsement. For example, it could serve as an example of what not to do. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Given the sources found by Rusalkii, seems like it meets the notability guidelines. DocFreeman24 (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep there appear to be enough sources to justify an article and even people agreed there wasn’t enough for a full article it should be merged with Video game censorship instead of being deleted entirely.--67.70.100.169 (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by Rusalkii. --JackFromWisconsin (talk &#124; contribs) 19:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. It's gotten the coverage as indicated, but what's really being covered is not so much this bill, but rather the legislative efforts to regulate video games in the United States. I think we would be better served to have an article about that topic, which would cover this legislation as well as, for example, the Video Game Decency Act and the Family Entertainment Protection Act; and probably 1993 congressional hearings on video games. (It would be a matter for individual consideration whether any particular legislation or legislative activity ought to have its own article, apart from a discussion in the umbrella article; the 1993 congressional hearings article, for example, clearly has enough to be separate; whereas the articles on two of the specific unenacted bills are stubs, and the one on the FEPA technically avoiding stubship only by having a section-by-section summary of the bill.)
 * Having a central article would, I think, be much better than three or more balkanized ones, and would give some better context to the individual failed bills.
 * We do have some articles -- and article sections -- that go into this, e.g.  and, probably some others; but the topic would probably be better dealt with cohesively than as a combination of parts of some articles, and individual small articles on individual unenacted bills that are better treated and understood in context of one another.
 * In the meantime, though, I would still go for a keep in this AFD, without prejudice against a later merger into a more cohesive approach as outlined above. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2021 (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.