At the moment Nintendo's priorities are most likely to avoid repeating the same mistakes as with the Wii U. Extended droughts for first party software are at the top of that list, hence no holiday 2016 launch. I think this is less about launch software than it is about the first half of 2017. Zelda would ensure a good 2016 launch, but that's not good enough when it's followed by a few months of emptiness in the release schedule. So NX gets delayed to avoid what happened to the Wii U. Nintendo will not want NX to get a negative reputation right from the outset, so the delay is the lesser evil between the two options.

Except Zelda since it was obviously delayed to coincide with NX.

Or was it delayed to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the franchise? Then Nintendo thought "Hmmmm lets just put it on the NX at the same time as the WiiU"

Man you are really desperate, using any and all possibilities that support your front, no matter illogical or just plain nonsensical they are.

Shares = Capcom. If I own 0.00001% of a company, that's how much my vote would be worth, if I was potentially at a table. And that's the reason those meetings are limited to the majority shareholders whos decisions actually hold weight.
If the firm itself happens to have over 50.1% of the shares, they can have the majority ruling in their favor in any situation. We don't know exactly how it is in Nintendo, but whatever the case was with Capcom, the majority of shareholders were open for an outside buy out.

Either way, my point was that there's no reason to not inform major shareholders during shareholder meetings, and that major shareholders have a certain say in things. It generally equates to their amount of shares.
And even if the firm itself owns the majority of the shares, that doesn't mean that keeping the others unhappy is always free of consequence.

I didn't say it was simply owning stock. I said "control stock", refering to major shareholders.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/controlstock.asp

I also didn't say they were required to tell their major shareholders any time they get a new idea. But there have been quite a few shareholder meetings since Nintendo first announced the NX project. If you are a serious company, you make sure your majority shareholders are informed of relevant information during your shareholder meetings.

Yeah, they don't neccesarily have controlling stock. I don't know how it works in Nintendo exactly, but that was an example of how it can work.
Either way, the point was the value in keeping major investors informed on business decisions relevant to their earnings. For whatever reason those specific investors are sitting at the table, telling them when Nintendo expects to make a profit on major projects is definitely of outmost interest to everyone involved.

Im just saying its possible. Just like you.

Exhibit A, Zelda Wii U explicitly stated to be a 2016 release by Nintendo as recently as 6 months ago. Exhibit B, Zelda Wii U delayed to March 2017. Xzibit C, NX launching in March 2017 "to make sure there are games to go along with the NX."

It stands to reason if Zelda was originally planned to release in 2016, then the system it is serving as a launch title for was also planned to release in 2016.

You can call it whatever you want, I don't need to use the "d" word. Nintendo planned to launch NX this year, but decided against it because they didn't have enough games ready. This was all but confirmed in the Q&A. The rest is just semantics.