Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii technical problems

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 -- Samir 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wii technical problems

Wii technical problems (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Insufficient content that duplicates existing content in the Wii article. Previously speedy deleted for being an attack page. Nearly all external edits are deletions to the page in an attempt to remove weasel words, unsourced opinion, and attack language. Jbanes 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you wish to vote merge, please specify which pieces of information you think should be merged. As discussed under Thunderwing's vote, all information of known value is already contained in the Wii and Wii Remote articles.

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, This page was created by a user who's created several similar pages to make a point about Xbox 360 technical problems. There isn't enough content on the subject to make it worthy of it's own article. Gtg204y 19:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is not worthy of its own article. Zomic_13 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything of note into Wii Thunderwing 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thunderwing, are you aware of anything of note that isn't already in the Wii article? Jbanes 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Strap breakages is listed here but not in the main- depends on whether this judged to be of note- it is sourced though. Thunderwing 20:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • That's actually because it's listed under Wii Remote#Strap. I probably should have mentioned that before, sorry. Jbanes 20:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Cool- looks like anything of note is now included, update to Delete Thunderwing 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into technical issues section of Wii article Ajmccauley 20:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the Wii issues section. WilliamKF 20:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any material that isn't already in other articles and Delete the rest. -- MisterHand 21:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All of the source material are already included in the Wii and Wii Remote articles, so there is nothing worth merging. TJ Spyke 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since there's nothing of note here. Most of the "complaints" appear to be reviewers who just hadn't got to grip with the controls. Valid complaints are already covered at Wii and Wii Remote. Tim (Xevious) 10:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge relevant information into the appropriate articles. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Wii Technical Problems are not being presented in a neutral or complete manner on the Wii Page. An inspection of the current discussion page, and the langauge and debate there, show that the primary editors have an agenda. This agenda is to mute a full and accurate presentation of the topic.
  
  The Wii Technical Problems page has some form issues, mainly because it hasnt had many editors due to it being replaced with a redirect. If the topic is to mature, and come out from under the "ownership" and suppression of the main-article editors. Wikipedia will suffer for not being a source of complete information. Wikipedia's reputation suffers for allowing bias to suppress information. 136.2.1.153 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge This is a fairly short article. I don't see why a short problems section in the Wii article can't be created. Uturnaroun 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Uturnaroun, thank you for your contribution to this discussion! If I may ask though, which information should be merged? The Wii article already has a Technical Issues section and a Criticism section, while the Wii Remote article already has Strap section that explains the strap problems. Can you specify the extra information you believe needs to be merged into one or both of these articles? Thanks! Jbanes 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap fork. Wii is featured - I don't see much need for a merge, but I guess that's an editorial decision. --- RockMFR 04:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the technical problems section. Not notable enough for it's own article unless it causes a significant amount of discussion in mainstream media, like the pokemon controversy article -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The "Wii Remote operation" subsection could be reworked into a "Reception" section for the Wii Remote article. Just64helpin 19:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Verdict - It seems that there is a consensus that this article should be removed. There is some interest in merging it, however, though there was very little feedback on what is worth merging. Just64helpin, you suggested that the "Wii Remote operation" section could be morphed into a "Reception" section for the Wii Remote article. Is this something you think you could take a crack at? There has been a lot of discussion concerning the fact that the "Wii Remote operation" section is lopsided toward negative reviews of the remote. Is there any chance you could balance that out in a Reception secion for the Wii Remote article?
  
  Once any information of value is merged, I'll place the delete request tag on the page to have it vaporized by an admin. Thank you all for your participation in this process. Jbanes 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Update - Seems that the admin review process is more automated than the guide suggested. Just64helpin has agreed to attempt to merge the suggested text into a new Reception section for the Wii Remote article. He's already userfied his work in progress, so this page can be reviewed by an admin at any time. Apologies if my own confusion confused anyone else. Jbanes 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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.