Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo Australia (3rd 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 redirect to Nintendo. Sandstein 16:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Australia

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nintendo Australia
• Articles for deletion/Nintendo Australia (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Nintendo Australia (3rd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Nintendo Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The company (which is a division of Nintendo) is not independently notable. When it seems like there are a lot of references, very few are actually reliable, and none of them actually discusses the company in detail. Most were discussing trivial details about Nintendo's game releases in the Oceanic region. WP:NEXIST also does not seem likely. OceanHok (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is just a division of Nintendo, not a stand-alone organization. What could justify it having its own distinct article? Gentleman wiki (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Per the "keep" outcome the last time it was nominated for deletion back in 2017, where the closer observed that no "policy-based reasons for deletion" could be found, is there a particular reason why a merge and redirect proposal on the relevant talk pages was not pursued instead as recommended by the closer? Haleth (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of the article is unsourced. The information that are sourced are mostly trivial and unimportant. I won't oppose redirecting the article (it is a viable alternative to deletion in this case), but merging this to the parent Nintendo article is not a good idea. OceanHok (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - per the nomination. Most references are excessive statistics for sales, while other information is nothing substantial and hardly referenced. Other regional divisions are also redirects, as they should be. -Vipz (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2021 (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.