Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video games censored by Nintendo of America


 * 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   delete. Tone 22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Video games censored by Nintendo of America

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is just purely an indiscriminate list of information and violates WP:WHIM. I also can't see if this article is even accurate, because there needs to be a lot more sources in order to verify this article. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 21:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ridiculous amounts of unsourced information and WP:OR. (Many of the things listed are wrong as well. For instance, removing things due to copyrights isn't censorship...it's just staying in the clear legally. Many other items are better issues of localization than censorship.) Sergecross73   msg me   01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or seriously trim many of these issues are not censorship. For, example replacing Mike Tyson with Mr. Dream was not censorship it was a legal requirement due to the end of the contract with Tyson. It would have been illegal to include him. Also before anyone brings up the rape case, the change to MR Dream happened before that so that had noting to do with the switch. The game came out in August 1990 and the arrest was in July 1991. I mention trim as a possibility since some games do have citations for censorship such as Maniac Mansion, but the list would need to be vastly improved first.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. If a game's been censored, it should be discussed on that game's article, not in a list that I've noticed has been gradually fattening over the past year or so. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 09:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of these claims have sources! Skullbird11 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Apparent WP:OR and no sources at all to establish notability. Further, it seems to be a bit of a soapbox. Perhaps such an article could exist if there were sourcing and could remain neutral, but at this point, it seems unlikely this will become that article. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - excessive original research with very little evidence of lasting notability per wp:gng. Also fails wp:WHIM, as pointed out by the nominator. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk &#124; contribs) 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although it could do with a rewrite it still serves as a useful reference for people interested in Nintendo video games, 219.90.165.250 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — 219.90.165.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument that is supposed to be avoided, FYI... Sergecross73   msg me   18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would see this more as a category, since individual articles where there was censor likely have sources supporting the fact.  Salvidrim!   19:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - It makes go sense and we should have one for Sega mega drive.184.44.129.253 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you point out any Wikipedia policies that would solidify your argument, as others have done? Also, the request for another article is outside the scope of AfD; that should be done at Requested articles. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk &#124; contribs) 22:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment reply - The above editor is a long-term disruptive editor known for improper behaviour and discussion antics, who has a habit of stalking others' contributions (namely mine) and post silly or disruptive comments. Just do like I do and ignore.  Salvidrim!   22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - What?,forget it,any way all it needs is a rewrite..184.44.129.253 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article looks mighty interesting to me. Perhaps some of them can be sourced? -Kai445 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (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.