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 redirect and protect, given that this information already exists on another article. --Coredesat 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Votes[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Everybody Votes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Inadequate info for an article. Everything in it (all 3 sentences) is included at Wii Channels#Everybody Votes Channel. Creator of the article removed PROD, merge request, and redirect and refuses to discuss the issue. TJ Spyke 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support - Article should redirect to Wii Channels, not be deleted, but deletion is better than its current status. -- Exitmoose 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep - Article has expanded considerably with information and sources. -- Exitmoose 03:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. TJ Spyke 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I tried redirecting it, but the article's creator kept reverting it and refused to discuss the issue. TJ Spyke 04:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. I did too, but was chided on my own talk page when I tried to do so. Oh well, hopefully we can reach a quick consensus. -- Exitmoose 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect. A separate article is not needed. --- RockMFR 04:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect The article itself states that the context is limited: little is known as to what its purpose is. Jerry lavoie 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to reconsider my !vote, in consideration of recent article development. I do agree that the basis for this AfD seems to no longer apply, however, I still fail to see the notability of the subject. Since I am unfamiliar with computer games, game consoles and the associated culture, I am choosing to abstain from !voting on this one. Please disregard my whole participation in this debate. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wii Channels. There doesn't exist any rationale for proving notability, other than the fact that it's a channel. As such, it should only be mentioned in the channels article. Bladestorm 05:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per RockMFR. Maxamegalon2000 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect. If the page is notable later on, then it should be an article. As of now: it doesn't need a page. --RobJ1981 06:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirectper RockMFR. Mausy5043 07:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. But why on earth would it a redirect need protection if the topic is covered in the target article? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)

• Protected redirects are used when one or more editor(s) believes it should be an article and keeps changing a redirect into a full article on the subject. The redirect is protected to prevent the article being recreated on that page. - X201 23:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although I might support redirecting it, aren't we having this discussion just too soon.. This type of market research is kind of new, although the playstation 3 has according to Tim Rogers' article in games TM 51 something similar.. Maybe this could be interesting in a few weeks..
  • That's kind of the point, there's no reason to assume that there's going to be an entire article's worth of information yet. At the moment the article is stubbly. Sockatume 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]
• Redirect and Protect. Keep, as the article has been improved. Ixistant 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It seems that somebody's removed the deletion notice. However, they've also added some significant content to the article. (At least, something that might warrant it having its own article) Is it still necessary to go through this procedure? Or would it be better to just leave it be? (Actual question; not rhetorical) Bladestorm 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The added content is basically a game guide. --- RockMFR 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No it's not. TheCoffee 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Take it to Wii Channels and shorten it. That one individual channel does not really need an article. SuperSonic 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Already covered in the Wii Channels article, reads like a press release. Fin©™ 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Protect Same as others have said. Not notable enough at the moment to have it's own article, everything that needs to be covered is in the Wii channels article. Protect because of the recreation of the page after a valid redirect. - X201 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: There have been new sentences added since it was added to the other page. Why is there a Delete tag and not a Merge one? TheListUpdater 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was at one time, but it was deleted by article creator. -- Exitmoose 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is now much, much longer than it was when this discussion started, and the nominator's reasons for deleting it are no longer valid. TheCoffee 02:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. It's not very much bigger. The whole article is about a few paragraphs (which can easily be described in the Channels section still.) If the channel grows alot, and becomes more notable: the article can always be re-created. RobJ1981 04:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and protect. As everybody has said, a separate article is not needed. If it becomes more notable in the future, things can always be changed later. --Captain Cornflake 13:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has some good info now. nuff said.Purplepurplepurple 14:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was first going to comment and say redirect and protect but now it really looks like it's starting to flesh out. I say keep it. Give the page a chance.Neo Samus 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neo Samus (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC).— Neo Samus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The current status of the article is more than acceptable, and provides plenty of room for expansion as more information becomes available. Jbanes 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect There's no reason to assume that more information than what we know now about the Everybody Votes Channel will ever become available. It's a simple idea, with a simple execution, and fits much better as a subentry on the Wii Channels page than as its own page. Klondike 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is Iwouldnt have found this page otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlinfan23 (talk • contribs)
  • That is not a valid reason. TJ Spyke 22:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is going to be more info. I have just added a Results part which is going to tell the winning votes in a poll.Pendo 4 20:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Protect as the nominator. The results section is just cruft. Remove all the other cruft and the instuctions on how to use the channel (which is not allowed) and you have info that can be (and already is) covered at Wii Channels. Also, this is a discussion and not a vote. So votes like Purplepurplepurple won't carry much (if any) weight when deciding what to do with this. TJ Spyke 22:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If all the Wii Channels simply have all their information on the Wii Channels page, then eventually that page will be crowded and hard to read and manage, very un encycolpedic (if that's a word). Also, information will have to be limited due to space constraints, and this will result in poor quality information. All in all, every Wii Channel that has some significance (Minus Virtual Console channels and built in wii channels, and any trivial channels) deserves it's own article, as this is the mission of wikipedia, to be a global knowledge repository, to provide the masses with an easy to use, and reliable encyclopedia, to give the gift of information, even on something so trivial as a ballot. That's my take anyways. Leif902 23:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It isn't. - Vague | Rant 13:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Another short comment (Sorry)... If This article deserves to remain undeleted, then the Everybody Votes article surely does, just give it stub status and people will respond and fix it up. Already it's been given references, etc. This discussion is rather out of date. Information is comming.Leif902 23:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't deserve an article, and that's why I just prodded it. Also ,the "so and so article exists, so this one should too" argument doesn't work on Wikipedia. TJ Spyke 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd actually like to vote "postpone the AFD for 2 weeks", but Keep means the same thing. Deletion is always very drastic. Let's see how it evolves, then vote again. Peter S. 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are forfeiting your vote? Because you have not given a reason for your keep vote (so your vote probably won't be counted). Also, I am proposing to turn it into a redirect, not deletion. TJ Spyke 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My my my, aren't we aggressive today? :-) What I'm saying: 1 day after something has come out, the implications on society, life, gaming history and the legacy of the Wii cannot be seriously addressed, and therefore it is too early to give a definite answer whether to delete or keep the article. Since I do not wish for somebody to create the article again in a few weeks when we can address this question more clearly, I want to preserve the article now. And since we cannot foster a proper article by killing it prematurely, my vote here is keep. Cheers. Peter S. 11:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD isn't about votes, it's about the best statements for and against the article. RobJ1981 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, i'm jus trying to remind people of that since it seems like most of the people saying "Keep" aren't actually providing a reason. TJ Spyke 01:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Protect if neccesary. I really would like to say keep, but I don't see how this couldn't be covered in a paragraph or two in the Wii Channels article. Also, its just simple opinion polls. If they had some serious voting, like on characters to add to Super Smash Brother Brawl or anything else that could affect future development, then it would probably warrant its own article. And I don't see how it would start cluttering the main channel's article. We do have something known as a table of contents with jump-to-here links. -TwilightPhoenix 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just look at the article, damnit. There's nothing wrong with it at all. Deleting it because 'it could also just be written in one paragraph on the Wii Channels page' is dumb. We could also just write one paragraph of the Internet Channel on the Wii Channels page, and delete that article. Why don't we? Because Wikipedia is meant to provide information. Why can't Wikipedia provide more than just one paragraph of information on the Everybody Votes channel? VDZ 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Internet Channel has potential to be expanded since the current version is a trial and its very likely many more features, and thus more information, when the final product is released. This channel is pretty much in its final form and, unless we start listing polls or something significant is polled, very little, if any, more information will become available. Most of the information not found in the Wii Channels article is about how to use the channel. The two or three lines could easy be merged to the Wii Channels article. If any of the articless channels deserve one, it would be the Mii channel in my opinion. -TwilightPhoenix 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems that this article was nominated for deletion far too quickly! Good information on the page and a worthwhile expansion of the Wii Channels article. Tim 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion may not carry much weight since I just registered, but there doesn't seem to be enough to warrant an article yet. The Wii Channels page seems to say all that is needed about the channel. Lrrr IV 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This provides information, and will quickly become a very good article. I think maybe every Official Nintendo channel (excluding the default channels such as the News and Weather and Photo channels) merits its own article just as every individual piece of software in a series merits its own article. You wouldn't just make one article for every game in the Legend of Zelda series would you? No. So don't just make one article for all of the Wii Channels. They are individual items, and information on them will be needed and easier to find if they have their own articles. Leif902 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Haha. I guess this page did kick off! This is what I was talking about when I said more information would be added! I now think this article has enough info to have its own page. Oh, and for the interested (and if you didn't realize it), I wasn't entirely serious about all my revisions last night (Check my userpage for proof). Late night boredom is a terrible thing. I am glad to see the page got more information, though! Steve HP 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: This is my third time that I say to keep and I am continuing. This boat load info is to big to not be an article. Even though it started small it grew massive.65.10.162.29 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I read the arguement against it and none are legimet. For example "not every channel needs its own article" this is true, they don't NEED an article but WHY would it hurt to have one. I think it would increase the amount of information o wikipedia and therefor be helpful. Penubag 08:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Such A Strong Keep I Am Not Being Funny: Hey everyone. If you want to keep this go to the article debating on it.Pendo 4 20:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far there has not been any reason why this article should exist. All the RELEVANT info (i.e. not cruft or instructions) is already covered at Wii Channels, so there is no reason this should not just be a redirect. TJ Spyke 22:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Sure, the article may be limited in information, and I suppose it could be merged with another article...however, there are no articles I can think of that would be a good merging-platform other than the Wii Channels Article. If you must move it, merge it there. Otherwise, let it grow. Introbulus 15:10, 17 February 2007 (EST)
• Question When is the decision on this discussion supposed to be made? -TwilightPhoenix 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" 05:18, 14 February 2007 TJ Spyke (Talk | contribs) (nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)". An AfD discussion lasts for 5 days. It will end on 19 February 2007 at 05:18. I have no idea in what time zone that is, but I do know that it will end the 19th of February. VDZ 11:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I read the arguement against it and none are legimet. For example "not every channel needs its own article" this is true, they don't NEED an article but WHY would it hurt to have one. I think it would increase the amount of information o wikipedia and therefor be helpful. Penubag 08:05, 15 February 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.