Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii

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 speedy keep with an indef block on the side. auburnpilot talk 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wii[edit]

This console is a joke. It does not deserve its own article. Not only is the article flawed in every way, but Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are the main sellers, not this $250 wannabe console. It’s also a vanity article created by Nintendo for the most part. --Brokendownhondaaccord 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously. Maxamegalon2000 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. - Claims of "a vanity article created by Nintendo", and being "non notable" were made without supporting evidence relating to actual policies or guidelines. The phrasing of the nomination indicates that the nomination was made maliciously. Dancter 15:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. If you think that the Wii doesn't deserve a wiki based off your "wannabe" status, then why aren't you nominating the 3DO, CD-i, Neo Geo, Virtual Boy, and N-Gage wikis for deletion? Fanboy-ism aside, you could at least give us a list of things you find flawed with the current wiki if you really want legitamite discussion? MisterCQNZR 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a bad faith nomination from a user whose only edits are vandalism and bad faith AfD's. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Ahahahahah! So let me get this straight. A Featured Article is non-notable? A console that has sold, not shipped, over 5 million units is non-notable? You sir fail at life. And the fact that all your previous edits have been stupid AfD nominations and vandalism just adds weight to the case against you and against deleting the article. Ixistant 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and an indef for the nominator. Bad faith nomination. He's obviously not here to help in any way. --Onorem 16:00, 19 March 2007 (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.