Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viva La Wii60!

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 of the debate was delete both - Liberatore(T) 16:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viva La Wii60! and Wii60

KayinRichards: Keep Wii60, delete Viva La Wii60- Wii60 is a relevant and notable term, as of E3 2006. This term has caught on like a viral campaign, that doesn't seem to be related to either company in any formal manner. Regardless, it has taken on a life of it's own, and this term is on every game forum on the net. It will be around for the foreseeable future, and normal console game cycle. I would say 5-6 years. My brother is 13, and kids in his school in Florida have been talking nonstop about the three consoles. Wii60 (he has told me) is a frequent term used amongst his friends, and kids who're unhappy with the new PS3's showing/price/forced blu-ray. I don't see any reason for the Wii60 article to be deleted; however, I do think that the Revolution one, is absurd, and has no business on Wikipedia.

Load of unencyclopedic randomcrapcruft and fancruft. Speedy contested by author, with comments on talk page. M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If we're going to have phrases like "noob" on wikipedia, there's no problem with this. It just needs some cleaning up. -Sanius 07:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, plus "non-notable" imho. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Zaxem 04:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given by nominator. DVD+ R/W 04:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hard to see how this could ever reach notability. Gwernol 04:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: a rally cry used by Gamefaqs and Gamespot users? Until it gains notability outside of these forums this has no place here. --Hetar 04:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Google isn't everything, but not a single hit. :) Dlohcierekim 05:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NPOV violation; fancruft too.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  07:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unencyclopedic. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Unencyclopedic GameFAQs cruft. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So what should I do to improve it so that you guys don't delete it?

Comment I don't personally think this can be saved; apart from anything else, the phenomenon is too recent to be encyclopedic, in my view. However, being constructive, I would suggest some citations (format: [http://www.XYZ.com.ru] in the text, or in an external links section [http://www.XYZ.com.ru/antiPS2 Origins of ABCD shown on www.XYZ.com.ru]. In addition and of equal importance, ensure that notability is met. See WP:WEB and WP:MEME for some ideas on this. Personally, I think that fixing up the spelling and formatting couldn't hurt, although doing this alone won't affect the notability of the article. Have a look at What wikipedia is NOT to get an idea for some categories of articles that don't pass muster. Happy editing, Colonel Tom 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My spelling is fine...I'm gonna be editing this for a day or two so don't delete yet... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justicemanjj15 (talk • contribs).

Oh, and if you enter "Viva La Wii60" into google or yahoo, you get many relevant links to all kinds of video game websites, besides Gamespot and Gamefaqs. That is pretty notable if you ask me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justicemanjj15 (talk • contribs).

If you enter the exact phrase (surrounded by quotation marks) you get zero hits. If you leave off the quotation marks you indeed get 13 hits only two of them are even vauguely related to the meaning you give in your article, so they do not support your claim of notability. In fact it demonstrates clearly that no-one is using this phrase. Gwernol 16:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote it to be neutral, put in some links, put in a time-frame, related stuff shows up on google, but its still not good? The Wikipedia Notability page says that is has no official policy on it. Besides this is not fiction either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justicemanjj15 (talk • contribs) .

I just put in tons of links, showing that this is all across the internet. The Washington Post wrote an article about the agreement. I hope that convinces you guys that this is "notable".

I'm afraid these don't make your article notable. The link to the Washington Post article, for example, shows that that Nintendo have launched a console called the "Wii". No-one is disputing that, and indeed Wikipedia already has a good, sourced article about the Wii. These links do nothing to support your claim that "Viva La Wii60" is a popular and notable phrase, or that there is a group of "Revolutionists" calling for XBox/Ninetendo fanboys to unite against the PS3, which is the central claim of your article. The rest of your new material is original research. The primary link you provide that supports your claims is this one. Unfortunately that is a link to a forum (which isn't in itself proof of notability) and most of the postings there are other forum members telling you that your idea is, essentially, non-notable. Nothing I've seen here entices me to change my opinion above. This article is non-notable original research with no relevant reliable sources and should be deleted. Gwernol 17:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. If you guys wanna delete it so badly go ahead. I was just trying to contribute. I thought it was interesting, and yes, notable. I did all I could to try to make it meet your standards, but that is easier said than done. What if I were to write another article about the informal alliance between Microsoft and Nintendo in general, minus the revolutionist stuff? Seeing as I have so many links to back that up as notable, would you guys challenge it too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justicemanjj15 (talk • contribs).

• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is not an encyclopedia article. --Bachrach44 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reasons above--TheFEARgod 22:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at link number 4. Hopefully that will save me. If not, o well.

• Keep reluctant Keep. Yes, i'm serious. Just because it isn't perfect yet doesn't mean we should throw it away. He just needs to fix it up. I never knew that Notability was a policy, rule, or guideline, so how can you delete this just for being not-notable? I believe the user has a point. Why not keep this for a few days and let people try to establish importance or notability? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 05:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The user was probably misguided as to what wikipedia is. Rather than scrap his efforts, why not try to make the page encyclopædic, clean the page, or wikify it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccool2ax (talk • contribs) .
    • Why not? Because right now it's impossible - there are no reliable sources for this term, and it is inherantly unencyclopædic. --Hetar 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I investigated and tried to clean it up, but I guess it really is beyond saving. Maybe again in the future if this catches on will we rebuild this page. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what I will do is redo this article under the name "Wii60", leaving out the Revolutionist stuff and keeping it focused on the informal alliance between the two corporations.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justicemanjj15 (talk • contribs).

The problem is that the phrase "Wii60" is not very notable either. Also, it might be flagged for deletion as recreation of deleted material. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @

19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless consenus is reached here to change the article name to Wii60 and to change the content to the phrase, not the group. Wasn't the article already heading in that direction? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was.

there is already an article called Wii60. Maybe we could merge the two articles.

they are merged. Now what?

Your article has 27 unnamed links proving that Wii60 is notable? Is that what notabilitists demand? honestly, you could've done a lot better on the article.---- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 03:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate the Wii60 and Viva la Wii60 AfD. While Viva La Wii60 is more POV and terrible, Wii60 is a better article. Unglue the two AFDs. And besides, you didn't change the page. Just the header.

I agree. We should scrap the Viva La Wii60 page and focus on the actual Wii60 page.

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.