Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii Health


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-13 09:44Z 

Wii Health

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This game does not meet any notability criteria, it has not been confirmed (WP:CRYSTAL), and there are no reliable sources, just a blog post. Leebo 86 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding the article:


 * Wii Health Pack

to the debate as it appears to be about the same subject. ~Matticus TC 12:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No such game has been announced by Nintendo. The onl such mention is in a blog, and the guy offers no proof of the game. TJ Spyke 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL, this article is about something that might have been "hinted" at by the company. janejellyroll 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a hint, but not an official announcement. McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete A comment in a blog isn't a basis for an entire article. As of now, no notability.  Gan  fon  00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete The article states the source and it states that "Wii Health" is one of the excepted to be released for the Wii. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.88.18 (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
 * The article also says that little is known about it, and that somebody mentioned it on their blog. That's not notable, that's crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a textbook example of WP:CRYSTAL. The source provided is trivial and not reliable, so we have basically a prediction not backed up by the facts. --N Shar 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:RS states "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources" due to verifiability concerns. Without a verifiable source, the article is just speculation per WP:CRYSTAL.-- Kyok o  01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a message left on a blog. It is a blog post itself. There is a difference, and because he is paid by a reliable news source to write the article... McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The blog mention does not actually make an explicit claim that the game exists, and the insinuation it does make is just not strong enough to serve as the basis of an entire Wikipedia article. That the subject does not meet any WP:SOFTWARE criteria means that there very likely is not enough reliable information right now to develop a fair, verifiable, encyclopedic article. The article can be recreated when better information is available. Dancter 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is indeed a mention of an announced "Health Pack" in the Iwata Asks interview series, and a search for "Health Pack" does pull up articles confirming an announcement. Game database entries and SPOnG articles are notoriously unreliable. Not much is reported other than an announcement and a bare description. As a note, it seems the game has been covered on the list of Wii games for quite some time, but no new reliable information has been shown since then. At this point, I withdraw my delete vote, which should not be construed as a vote to keep. Dancter 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But it isn't speculation either. McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's still not a clear fulfillment of the notability criteria, especially where depth of content is concerned, per the primary criterion. In any case, you should note that my vote had already been withdrawn. Dancter 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gamasutra, Next-gen, IGN, t3, cubed3, gameworld, and Nintendo have all mentioned it. That should satisfy the criterion. McKay 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before (in another way), it's the "non-triviality" qualification that is of concern. Pretty much everything that can be said about it at this time is covered in the list of Wii games. Dancter 06:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Leebo. JPG-GR 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per above also seems to be pure nonsence as wellOo7565 04:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not patent WP:NONSENSE! McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete until (if and when) it actually exists. Alex43223Talk 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason. Should we also delete Final Fantasy XIII until it exists?


 * Delete Appears to be patent nonsense — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you should review WP:NONSENSE McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that this is nonsense. It's certainly crystal ballery, but I can understand why someone created an article for it. Maxamegalon2000 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Correct. It's not nonsense by either definition (jumbled characters or irreparably confused prose). It's decently formatted and in proper context, it just doesn't have any solid footing to stand on from a verifiability standpoint. Leebo 86 12:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - though it feels like piling on. Philippe Beaudette 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete I have found a few articles that has talked about it including one on the official nintendo website. iwould have thought you people would have found it.User:Martyn1987 PS. Look at the bottom of the page under footnotes.
 * Delete As a avid video gamer, and a Wii owner, I find this article to be unhelpful at best. Perhaps one day there will be enough information on the subject to make a legitimate article, but until that time, it shouldn't exist. -Adun 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this fictuos goo that doesn't have proof I say at least we expempt it from the Wii game series until we have evidence from more than blog this is not the rumors section in egm this is wikipediaMarioman12 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wait till E3, then let it have it's article. 66.114.186.37 16:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a place for irrelevant future information. Generally not relevant at the minute. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR, RS &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  18:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - a non-administrator attempted to close this as delete. Please note that non-admins obviously cannot delete articles. --- RockMFR 00:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RS ffm  yes? 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. Geoff B 11:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOT.  S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  05:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The product name is currently uncertain (the blog post and Miyamoto comment use different names) and that's the only information on the product. Sockatume 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete. Just because it hasn't been officially announced yet, doesn't mean it isn't coming. Nintendo has referred to it a few times. It's coming, it's a game, and it's probably going to be a game very important to the gaming industry. I maintain that this article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.113.133 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 February 2007
 * KEEP . WP:CRYSTAL clearly refers to WP:VERIFY. We've got sources IGN cubed3 t3 gameworld network. Sure the title is uncertain, but we've got a much better idea than Harry Potter 7 did in early december. Yes, they're based off a blog post but WP:RS mentions possible exclusions for a blog post. Joel on Software is clearly a blog, but it's established who he is, and it's just like he's got a weekly column in Dr. Dobbs or something. The same thing clearly applies to Matt's IGN blog. He's an employee at a reliable news organization, who gets paid by the News organization. Sure, we should treat such posts as weaker sources, but if we have that to work with, then we should go after it. McKay 20:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't think that "some blogs have hinted at a game that may or may not be called Wii Health and this is the premise, but it's not confirmed" is enough to sustain an encyclopedia article. There has always been a plan to write 7 Harry Potter books according to the author, so that was not in doubt the way this is. Leebo 86 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEPWoah, more articles I missed from before. This seems very relevant. Nintendo interview Apparently, it was "announced by Shigeru Miyamoto at a conference held in mid-September" according to nintendo. Covered by reputable sources gamasutra and next-gen. McKay 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, these IGN cubed3 t3 gameworld network are all blogs talking about the same original blog post. They don't count for anything more than a rumor, not as reliable sources. And these two (gamasutra and next-gen) are definitely better, but they're trivial. Each one mentions the game for only a sentence. The requirement is usually multiple non-trivial written publications. Basically, a source should be used if the subject is the focus of the article, not mentioned briefly. These don't meet that. Leebo 86 06:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You made two comments, one about IGN being not notable, and the others about being trivial. I think this is where there's some disagreement.
 * Blog posts being non-notable There is nothing in Wikipedia policy (that I'm aware of) that specifically excludes blog entries. It does say things about comments to a blog post being non-reliable, but doesn't specifically exclude the blog posts themselves. Take a look at Joel Spolsky He writes a blog Joel on Software. In his WP article it mentions how he is openly gay, yet there is a single posting in his blog in which he states that he has a boyfriend. Is his blog reliable enough that we can make assumptions based on it? Yeah, that's about himself, so we can probably assume that his information is reliable, but do you understand where I'm coming from? I've made the point before, that I think that this IGN blog posting, is notable. This isn't some random livejournal post. This is IGN, a reputable news source. This blog is a blog that he gets paid to write by the aforementioned news source. It is, in all actuality, IGN publishing it. Clearly, this should be considered notable. The fact that other people reference it in their blogs is actually part of the RS criteria! Should I go through the RS criteria for non-scholarly articles? Google("wii health") has 43,000 hits. I haven't been through all of them. I haven't even been to the second page. Sure, a bunch are probably referencing the IGN blog post (Heck, that single blog post probably satisfies notability, though probably not encyclopedic)
 * Gamasutra (et al) mentionings "trivial" 1) The trivial section doesn't say anything about 1 page news briefs having a 1 sentence mention being trivial. It does say that one sentenece in an entire biography is trivial. The Health pack mentioning in gamasutra is approximately 1/6 of the article. It is not a directory entry, and it addresses this topic directly. Next-gen also addresses the topic directly, and is not a directory entry. Several sentences on the subject matter are included.
 * Nintendo's article (okay, so maybe no one has refuted it (except you did use the word "rumor"), but I feel it necessary to bring it up again.) I mentioned Harry Potter 7 and how it was notable even before it's name was certain, and the response was something to the effect of "well, JKR has always said that there'd be 7." Maybe that isn't good enough reason. If so, I haven't heard a good enough reason. If not, then "announced by Shigeru Miyamoto at a conference held in mid-September" should be reason enough to satisfy WP:CRYSTAL right?
 * Really, I think that there's reason enough to include it according to wikipedia guidelines. McKay 06:39, 13 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.