MarioWiki:Featured articles/N1/New Super Mario Bros. Mii

Support

 * 1) I surely agree, its wonderful

Oppose

 * 1) First, "its wonderful" is not a good reason. How is it wonderful? You need to elaborate on that. Also, who are you agreeing with? The article itself is incredibly lackluster. I know we can't exactly add much info to a tech demo, but that's precisely why it can't be a featured article. It's just a relatively small intro, a list, and a single trivia piece. For a featured list, that could work, but this is supposed to be an article, so no go.
 * 2) Per GreenDisaster. If I felt like it, I bet I could correctly count the amout of words on this article.
 * 3) This article is just a list. It wouldn't even work as a featured list because... Well I don't even have to say it
 * 4) - Terrible. Why is this even still a nomination? There is no way it will ever meet the word count, nor is it even a true list.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Le per all.
 * 7) Wha...? No. Just no. This even wouldn't fit criteria to be a featured article at all.
 * 8) Nothing I can say that the other opposers haven't already said.
 * 9) Doesn't seem wonderful, nor feature standard to any extent. Per all.
 * 10) Per all. There's nothing on this page!
 * 11) This shouldn't become featured! It's a tech demo!
 * 12) Per all, it's not really even an article, it's just a list of things that would have been in a game.
 * 13) To be honest, I don't see the point in this being here. maybe on the mario wikia, but not here. Let alone it being a featured article here.
 * 14) It is too short.
 * 15) All per.
 * 16) First off it is a game that has not even been released yet. Not to mention there is very little information on it at this point.
 * 17) This game won't even be released; New Super Mario Bros U should be featured instead.
 * 18) Wow, seriously? I mean, this is a page about a tech demo, with little amount of info, with just a list of characters and objects. Per all. This really should not be a featured article.
 * 19) This makes me wonder why the proposal for "Enforce Support Reasoning for FA Nominations" was MAJORILY opposed and led to nonsense reasons while nominating.
 * 20) I don't really think I need an explanation.
 * 21) Per all. Is the reason for featuring the article even serious? Sounds more like a joke.