Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Video Game Rating Act

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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Video Game Rating Act

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

Twice proposed bill that never made it out of committee, got some coverage but doesn't appear notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also up for deletion: Video Game Decency Act Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational and historical, good to keep these articles that have good secondary source coverage among multiple different reliable sources, to reflect for posterity the tenor of the debate during that particular time period in history. — Cirt (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Could the nominator please explain why these articles could not be merged into, and redirected to, the appropriate article on censorship. These bills presumably amount to criticism of, and opposition to, existing law. (2) I am not interested in applying a requirement for continuing coverage to extant creative works. A document is not an event that is over and done with. It is a piece of literature that can be evaluated as such. The provisions of these bills could presumably be introduced or reintroduced tommorrow, or a hundred times, either in the same or a modified form, into any legislature in the world. James500 (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has not explained why he thinks these bills are not notable. The fact that these bills have not been passed is not relevant. A draft bill, never introduced into any legislature, would be notable if it received sufficient coverage. Like any other piece of literature. James500 (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps these could be redirected and merged into a single article? These kind of bills seem to pop up all the time, and it might be useful to be able to discuss them in a wider context of video game censorship legislation. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2013 (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.