Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo DSi XL


 * 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   keep. JForget 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo DSi XL

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Since the redirect gets reverted, this is up for afd. This article is repetitive of Nintendo DSi, particularly Nintendo DSi. Any further information will be mainly sales and reception, which can easily fit.  « ₣M₣ »  19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep First, new versions of systems usually get their own article (i.e. Game Boy Pocket, Game Boy Micro, plus all the different iPod models have their own articles instead of grouping them together). Plenty of sources show it is notable enough to have a article. The article will be improved more as its North American and European releases in March gets closer.  TJ   Spyke   19:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Game Boy Pocket actually redirects to Game Boy line.  DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Question How reliable are the sources being cited currently?  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 20:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Joystiq and Kotaku are 2 of the most popular video game websites and very reliable, MCVUK is popular too (although nowhere near as much).  TJ   Spyke   21:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the advice of TJ Spyke. If we have reliable sources in triplicate that ought to do it.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 21:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I feel the notability of the subject warrants its own article, and also per the reasoning of TJ. I'll see if I can add some more sources to the article, too, as there's more out there than are already in the article. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per TJ Spyke. (It's also worth noting that, for example, Game Boy Advance SP was a redesigned version of the Game Boy Advance, yet has its own article.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  04:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As others have said, I also feel that this is a new iteration of the DSi and so deserves its own article. Gaunt (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Never ever delete this article!!!! --74.240.186.138 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It is just a bigger form of the DSi. It has all the same features. All the same software. All the same games. Its just larger and comes in a few different colors. Any reception or anything on it would be about the DSi features, not it's largeness. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Didn't think the whole "x article has it, so y should have it too" argument would be so popular. I personally haven't worked on those Game Boy articles, but none of them are as comprehensive as Nintendo DSi. There was a small discussion on redirecting DSi XL awhile ago, that said, I fully support Aether7's stance on the matter.  « ₣M₣ »  16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – There's enough there that I think this easily passes for notability. However, a merge is possible, but as mentioned above, that's normally not done with separate handheld consoles (or even iterations, in the case of Game Boy Micro). I'd say, for now, this can be a separate article. I would also argue as to whether or not Nintendo DSi fits within the context of that section; perhaps that should be moved and/or condensed, I'd have to look into that more. –MuZemike 17:31, 1 February 2010 (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.