Talk:List of Mario Power Tennis pre-release and unused content

Is this article needed? Even if is is actual unused content, is this really enough for its own page? The Empty Section policy would just make this page redundant. 16:57, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
 * I agree, we should just put it on the page. -- 17:25, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

What I think is that it should either get more information on it or it should be deleted. Actually I think we should put a rewrite-expand template on it for a week and see how that works. Do you think? 19:17, 17 July 2015 (EDT)

Decide if this page should be deleted or expanded
I don't think this page should be deleted because we have a "pre release and unused content" for every page for a Mario game. Considering this page is about a Mario game, I think this page should just be expanded. I think all we need to do is put a rewrite-expand template first and see how that goes. If not, then I think I'll expand it, or I'll try.

Proposer: Deadline: July 31, 2015 23:59 EST

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal stated above.

Oppose

 * 1) This should be deleted (better word: merged) until we can find more information on any pre-release elements from Mario Power Tennis. So, far, I haven't seen anything relevant in the databases (such as Unseen64) and I don't recall seeing any early screenshots that look noticeably different from the final build other than weird camera angles (check the earlier images). I suppose Artist on the Court is a bit different, but not something article worthy. Currently, there isn't adequate information for this to be its own article, just as how Galleries need their own page only if they look excessive in the main article. The information in this page easily fits in the main page and when something like the Empty Section policy makes the page redundant, it means the page shouldn't have been there in the first place. So, I vote delete.

Comments
We don't need a proposal for every decision, especially when we already had a discussion expediting the process. If there's enough information to expand it, it can have an article; if not, there's not enough to substantiate it and it'll be merged. It's not like we're willingly withholding info here, which the proposal is seemingly implying.


 * It says above that it isn't needed because it has an empty section and all it needs is a little expanding. I see no reason for it to be deleted, especially because that reason is minor. 19:58, 17 July 2015 (EDT)
 * So discuss it. Why was your reaction to start a proposal that allows for only two options with no wiggle room and a two-week deadline to be resolved? I mean, we can still have the discussion in the comments, I guess, but you had a perfectly good header right above.