Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Snowball delete and salt. Magioladitis (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wii 2[edit]

Wii 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Whilst there probably will be reliable information about a successor to the wii someday, this is not it. The single source for this article itself admits it is merely rumour - there is no reliable or verifiable content here whatsoever. Ros0709 (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources are for interesting little tidbits in the article, don't verify the basic premise in the least. The image is a copyvio that isn't long for the world either. This is original research and crystalballing, no matter how pretty the packaging is. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, I don't understand what you are saying.
(A) What does "isn't long for the world" mean?
It will be deleted as it is a copyviolation. IE: against the law to use here. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Against the law? what is? — Supuhstar * § 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(B)"Original research" is false, as the research is from and by several sites. If you mean that I'm the only one who put any of it on Wikipedia, well duh, that's what you get with brand new articles.
Obviously you haven't read WP:original research. Please do. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just did. I cited several sources that are verifiable, did I not?— Supuhstar * § 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provide fail WP:RS ie: they are not reliable sources. Just because some website says something, that doesn't make it true. All sources must pass wp:rs. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(C)"pretty ... packaging"?— Supuhstar * § 06:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article structure and format looks ok. The problem is the content. I think you mean well but you don't understand the criteria for inclusion and sourcing guidelines yet. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I make it plain and clear that much of it is speculation, but it is all long researched, easily predictable, implied, and/or obvious.
  1. Much of it is cited, so calling it "crystalballing" it a stretch longer than the world's longest taffypull.
  2. "[R]eliable information" is there! I say if Shigeru Miyamoto, himself, said it, it must be taken as truth.
  3. "The single source for this article itself admits it is merely rumour..." Only part of said article was admittant on rumor, while the majority was true. Plus, there are several references included in Wii 2 other than those from What They Play.
  4. Most Important Of All!!! There will be another Nintendo console. No one can seriously doubt that. I put in editors notes on the page, "<!---This [name] is unofficial, if an official one is found, replace this one and move this page--->" It's as simple as that! Wikipedia is great becaues it can be edited on-the-fly. All information that becomes false or is otherwise updated can be chanced when needed! If they call it something else, then the article shall be moved to one with an appropriate name! I love it!— Supuhstar * § 06:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Long researched, easily predictable and obvious are not criteria for inclusion. Please read WP:N to see the criteria that everyone must follow. WP:RS is also a good read, as it will help define what is a 'reliable source'. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The information is mostly speculative and nothing concrete. Mostly it's a lot of "might includes" and "could includes". either way (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vague information about "Wii 2"/"Wii HD" doesn't warrant inclusion in the main Wii article, let alone a separate article for itself. just64helpin (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt In one of the interview Nintendo mentioned that they have no plans to make another Wii.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this interview?— Supuhstar * § 18:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there --SkyWalker (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE It's been revised so that only that which is 100% confirmed is on the page. — Supuhstar * §17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence states that it is "in development" and gives several "commonly" used names. Neither is referenced. Ros0709 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No ref is needed for nicknames. Do you need to reference that "William" is also said "Billy"?— Supuhstar * § 03:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mate I think you're really missing basically the whole point of verifability, notability, and all those things. Take some time to read through the policies, study the AfD process for a few months, spend some time editing. I spent about four years editing before I made my first page. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps we should just wait until there is something of significance to write about reliably. Ros0709 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know... That's not such a bad idea. I'll save the page in a .txt document and once an official name shows itself, I'll put the confirmed info back into an article under said name. How's that? — Supuhstar * § 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems entirely reasonable to me. Ros0709 (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of saving it to text you can save it in your user page for example: User:Supuhstar/Sandbox--SkyWalker (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Supuhstar/Wii 2— Supuhstar * § 19:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would easily get smashed with a crystal hammer. MuZemike (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible. (A) Crystal Hammer is only for albums, not consoles. (B) The name does not say a "probable" or "unofficial" name. It's a fact. It is Nintendo's 8th generation console.— Supuhstar * § 01:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is only an essay, but actually I would have to agree with MuZemike. I was thinking it applied when I first saw this, but just stuck with traditional crystal to prevent confusion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have since annotated WP:HAMMER to include any unverifiable articles of a similar manner. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But not permanent salt! If this does become the true next console, it will need to be un-salted and probaby semi-protected.— Supuhstar * § 01:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Salting can always be undone, by an admin. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm an admin on Simpedia, as the "§" in my sig explains.— Supuhstar * § 03:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, never heard of it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 11:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://simpedia.co.uk/wiki/Main_Page --SkyWalker (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak merge and redirect Delete. Since the subject is of palpable interest and there are sources (albeit very minor ones), it might be more productive to include to condense this info and merge it into the Wii main article with the final statement that no successor is planned soon [1]. You can then redirectWii 2 and Wii HD rather than salting. I do not believe this would solve the crystalballing or lack of reliable sources issue, however.--Macrowiz (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you merge or redirect something that has exactly zero reliable sources, zero verifiable content, AND the company that is not planning to make it? I am open to hear how that is supported by policy, but that is kinda like making a redirect of Scary Movie 12 because they "might" make it someday. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my suggestion is ONLY predicated on the availability of corroborating reliable resources. I re-checked the sources, and I have agree that they are too poor to warrant its own article. --Macrowiz (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... they say "anytime soon". 2011 is not anytime soon. In fact, it is quite a while from now. 3 years to be exact. We aren't even half way between Wii's releas and then. So no. It will not be out anytime soon.— Supuhstar * § 19:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2011[citation needed]. Ros0709 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Video game consoles are released every 5 years. no citation needed! Like Thanksgiving is on the fourth Thursday of November. It's just tradition. — Supuhstar * § 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On November 15, 2001, Microsoft released the Xbox. On November 22, 2005, Microsoft released the Xbox 360. That's four years. The NES was released in 1983 by Nintendo followed by the SNES seven years later in 1990 which was then followed by the N64 in 1996 (6 years later). The reason Thanksgiving is celebrated on the fourth Thursday of every November is not simply tradition, as you say, but by federal law. either way (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft also said that they would join the race at the "proper time" for their next console. This is common for those just starting out.— Supuhstar * § 23:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nomination. Then apply WP:SALT, liberally. Do not merge. Do not redirect. Do not pass go. When there are better sources available we can address it then. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it snowing yet? --Macrowiz (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball delete Absolutely nothing verifiable yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Discussion has gone way off topic. There is no verifable sources to indicate this article meets inclusion criteria at wikipedia in any way. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After researching some more, I'm going with strong delete. This is far to early to be having this article, and we're inviting a host of other problems. This should be speedy/snowball deleted. There is just nothing out there. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wii_2&oldid=1144852331"