Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo Australia (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 in one form or another. I see no policy-based reasons for deletion without at least redirecting/merging. Consensus is slightly in favor or keeping it stand-alone but further discussion at the talk page might lead to a useful merge instead. So Why 09:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Australia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see what makes this independently notable. The majority of the article's claims are unsourced, and for the ones that are, they are just a statement they made regarding a game/pricing in the country. None of this makes the division independently notable. I propose we just delete the page, there is nothing important here to even merge that isn't already on the main Nintendo article. Our standards and policies have evolved since the last time this was brought up for deletion in 2008, and many of the arguments there (well sourced and well written) no longer apply. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to have sufficient of a life of its own in Australia and Oceania to have its own article. Seems to have sufficient WP:NEXIST to claim GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the thing, there isn't really any sources that exist that give independent notability to the division. Almost the entirety of the article is just listing Nintendo-related things that happened in Australia and commentary on pricing and distribution in the region (which isn't just a problem for video games). Both of these do not establish independent notability, and the actual notable info could just be included as part of Nintendo's main article, like Nintendo of America/Europe is. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that none of these are sufficient? Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the exact ones that give independent notability? Simply being passively mentioned in an article doesn't make something notable, even if covered by reliable sources. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Nintendo. No evidence of independent notability, appears to fail WP:NCORP. Arguing keep with a rationale of WP:NEXIST requires some proof. Anyone can CLAIM there's sources. Where are they? The existing sourcing isn't good enough, but if you have found something better, please share. -- ferret (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nintendo. An insignificant brand of a notable company. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wow, this is a full-blown article. While in principal merging the info into the Nintendo article would be okay, there is way too much info to be merged into a section in the main article so it would create undue weight there and the main article would become too long. What we do in similar cases is find a reasonable good title and split out the info into a separate "sub" article. So, we'd arrive at basically the same situation we are already in, hence no need to merge in the first place. Just keep and improve it, perhaps splitting out info on other large subsidiaries with their own history into separate articles as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys voting to keep are missing the point. The main issue is the lack of independent notability, not the general lack of sourcing and writing in the current article (although those aren't helping). As per my nomination, the majority of the article is just mentioning Nintendo-related things that happened in Australia and commentary on pricing and distribution in the region, which could just as well be applied to Nintendo of Korea and Europe, yet articles for them don't exist due to the same issues raised here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the notability guidelines laid out in WP:CORPDEPTH. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." That seems clearly to have been done here. The article has obviously demonstrated that the sources available make it "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub." While many of these multiple sources might not be extremely in-depth, they are non-trivial, in that they go beyond the level of the examples of trivial content listed in the guideline linked.Landscape repton (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please take a hatchet to this article's unsourced text, so we can get a fair look? The article is based on asides about "Nintendo in Australia" which, like "Nintendo in X country", should be based in the original article and spun out summary style. Do any sources discuss "Nintendo Australia" as a company with decisions independent of Nintendo & its subsidiaries? Or is the coverage just about sales in the Australia region? For it to warrant a summary style, we'd need to see it in the main article first. My hunch is that the broad sales claims, pared to due weight, would fit just fine in the parent article. This needs a much closer look than has been provided above. czar 17:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.