Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii vs. PS3

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wii vs. PS3[edit]

Unencyclopedic subject, inherently POV, content more appropriate for Wii and PlayStation 3 articles. Dancter 01:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have an article which compares xbox 360, PS3 and wii. Comparison of seventh-generation game consoles . don't think a separate article is needed. --Ageo020 01:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unencyclopedic. --Merovingian - Talk 01:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally speaking "competitor A versus competitor B" topics are unencyclopedic... and usually are deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. -- H·G (^words/_works) 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ageo020. Maxamegalon2000 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comparisons for these systems belong here. Bp28 02:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete information is already documented as noted above. --Xrblsnggt 03:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't this have just been prodded? Stormscape 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maxamegalon2000 did prod it, but the template was removed, so I threw it up here. Dancter 04:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really wanted to speedy it, but I couldn't find a justification. I'd figured the original author would take off the prod tag right away. --Maxamegalon2000 12:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails WP:NOT (i.e. It's just some guy's essay). -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just a POV essay. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all Bucketsofg✐ 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently POV, un-encyclopedic. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 01:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with most of the above. Product comparisons aren't encyclopedic. Ace of Sevens 01:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is information that's probably already in one of those "Comparison of..." articles. -- gakon5 02:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Combination 15:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mikeeilbache r 19:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, making conclusions based on information is considered original research. -- ReyBrujo 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Stellmach 16:49, 1 August 2006 (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.