Talk:Wii U: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:45, 17 April 2011

Delete

This page should be deleted simply because it is based on speculation and rumors from websites that doesn't give any credible sources. Neither Nintendo or any other official source has confirmed it and it is not credible at all.

To be honest, I have concerns about this page. It definitely warrants a section in the Wii article, but I feel that it shouldn't be an article... yet. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal would seem to apply, so yeah, deletion is probably best (at least until it is officially announced). Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 02:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I use the wrong template?--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --69.131.13.28 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three periods is a very logical reason. Look, there is no actual proof of any console. Only speculation and rumours spread by gaming sites. Until Nintendo is used as a direct source, this article should NOT be made.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the article will probably be deleted, it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I also changed the generation note because it is possible for a successor to a console to be part of the same generation (the Atari 2600 and Atari 5200 are both considered to be second generation systems). SNS (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I am not user 69.131.13.28) This page should not be speedy deleted because, while it is only rumour and speculation, it is no less valid a topic for an article than Nintendo On, which was believed by a large number of people prior to it being confirmed to be a fake. The page should remain, but until a solid source confirms it, the page should emphasise its status as uncertain. The end result can then inform whether the page should be deleted, retained similar to Nintendo On, or turned into an article about the real product, should there be one. Meanwhile, the article can catalogue the claims made by various media sources. Aielyn (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 03:10, 17 April 2011 edit SNS (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,891 edits Fixed links ← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:45, 17 April 2011 edit undo Aielyn (talk \| contribs) 139 edits →Contested deletion Next edit →
Line 11:		Line 11:

	::While the article will probably be deleted, it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I also changed the generation note because it is possible for a successor to a console to be part of the same generation (the [[Atari 2600]] and [[Atari 5200]] are both considered to be second generation systems). [[User:SNS\|SNS]] ([[User talk:SNS\|talk]]) 03:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)		::While the article will probably be deleted, it does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I also changed the generation note because it is possible for a successor to a console to be part of the same generation (the [[Atari 2600]] and [[Atari 5200]] are both considered to be second generation systems). [[User:SNS\|SNS]] ([[User talk:SNS\|talk]]) 03:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

			(Note: I am not user 69.131.13.28) This page should not be speedy deleted because, while it is only rumour and speculation, it is no less valid a topic for an article than [[Nintendo On]], which was believed by a large number of people prior to it being confirmed to be a fake. The page should remain, but until a solid source confirms it, the page should emphasise its status as uncertain. The end result can then inform whether the page should be deleted, retained similar to Nintendo On, or turned into an article about the real product, should there be one. Meanwhile, the article can catalogue the claims made by various media sources. [[User:Aielyn\|Aielyn]] ([[User talk:Aielyn\|talk]]) 03:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)