Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo Pictures

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Pictures

Nintendo Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  list of Video game-related deletion discussions
  . 10:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Another long time resident of the NPP queue. Several reviewers have judged the topic to be non notable and redirected it, but other editors revert these changes and suggests AfD as a resolution, so here we are. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, and Japan. Mccapra (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The division is notable and well documented in sources. Similar divisions like Nintendo Entertainment Planning & Development and Nintendo Platform Technology Development have been given similar levels of coverage and have their own respective articles. ~ HAL333 06:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 18:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—has enough sources to establish notability, even outside of Nintendo as a whole. DecafPotato (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment at the moment the sources are all routine corporate announcements about an acquisition. Does anyone see any better sources? If not, how do the existing sources meet
  WP:NCORP? Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: There are 8 different and unique
  WP:NCORP. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 18:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Now 10. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 18:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough reliable sources for a short article. Enough to pass
  WP:NCORP. Archrogue (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per Archrogue. Nythar (💬-❄️) 00:33, 9 December 2022 (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.