You forgot about New Super Luigi U.
And both Zelda BoTW and MK8 are Wii U games that were ported to Switch.

If we look at only original games, Switch has 5 and Wii U has 4.

The comparison doesn't really favour Nintendo much.
Although, something different should have happened.

That's fine and all, but this is what you said earlier:
The question posed by Pegan was "How to port any games over in 7 years. Forgett 7 years. How to play games in just 3 years?"
And your answer in regards to how they will port games like that to Switch was: "That totaly make sense because Switch is Nintendo unified platform, and it will have multiply revisons with possibility of Switch Pro/Switch2 or similar that will probably support same games (look at PS4 Pro and Xbox X)."

You forgot about New Super Luigi U.
And both Zelda BoTW and MK8 are Wii U games that were ported to Switch.

If we look at only original games, Switch has 5 and Wii U has 4.

The comparison doesn't really favour Nintendo much.
Although, something different should have happened.

But the sacrífices weren't small, were they?
Not only they "abandoned" their platforms for quite some time, they are already showing holes in their release schedule in the first half
And speaking of sacrífices, they didn't stop supporting one platform, but two. And when we see the amount provided by Nintendo, did it really pay off? In terms of (original) games, the difference is minimal. In terms of quality, i don't think more time developing explains quality differences that we can see. It's also about what games you choose to develop.

But Nintendo did have those consumers. 
They started losing them to Sega and Sony, and even MS. So, i don't see how they can't try to regain what they had once.
If MS could gain those consumers from Sony, how can't Nintendo? The consumer is buying a Switch. What Nintendo needs is to find a way to show them that 1st party Nintendo + 3rd party is the best combo possible.

But i'm not advocating that Switch can become another Wii U.
For the first time in decades, Nintendo has managed to really grab those consumers on the home console front. Now, comes the time where Nintendo makes them stay.

Gamers are more than willing to sacrifice certain aspects to get the console they desire, but they aren't willing to sacrífice a lot or even important things.
And that's why it's important for Nintendo to get as much 3rd party support as it can as soon as possible.
Getting back to the original point, Switch's strengths will only hold the fort for so long. If they can get real 3rd party support (big names and not watered down multiplats), combined with continuous Nintendo support, people might just see Nintendo as a place they can have the best experience (Nintendo games + 3rd party games).
HW revisions that don't increase the gap between Switch and PS5/XB4, are a step in that direction.

It's a big if. But it can happen.

I didnt forget it, its just DLC that got a standalone release.

But if you insist on adding NSLU than ill add DLC for Zelda, ARMS & Splatoon.

Why would we disregard Zelda? It was a brand new game, it doesnt matter that its multiplat, its still a brand new title.

Yes Mario Kart was a port but added new content and ports still take resources.

I like that you conveniently ignored the part about Switch games being much larger is size/scope.

Overall Switch 1st party output was significantly greater than Wii U or 3DS in the first 10 months.

The sacrifices were small. They only scaled back on Wii U support, a console that was cemented as failure. There wasn't any real damage that could be done to the Wii U. The 3DS received continuous support even after Switch had already launched. Nintendo is releasing at least seven games from February to June 2018, so there are no holes in the release schedule; given the back catalogue that Nintendo built in 2017, Switch doesn't need system-selling software as much as an unhealthy console. You have to constantly downplay Switch's games to make your point which means that you don't have much of a point to begin with.

Microsoft is setting themselves up for a future without consoles, so they don't work as a positive example for anything. If you repeatedly denounce the Wii, you have no choice but to concede that Microsoft is nothing more than a fluke, because otherwise you contradict your own logic.

You are still greatly overestimating the importance of AAA third party games. You portray those games as an essential factor that Switch needs to have, but there's no evidence to support such an assertion. What video game history shows is that those games are not important. You insist that a Nintendo console cannot remain successful without AAA third party games, but Nintendo handhelds have always done well. Since Switch is a hybrid, any honest analysis must factor in both the home console side and the handheld side of Nintendo's history. Nintendo's handheld side is not going to suddenly crumble due to a lack of AAA third party games.

Are you relly still try to compare Switch 1st year with Wii U 1st year!? :D

Switch 1st year is probably strongest 1st year for any Nintendo console why Wii Us 1st year is probably weakest 1st year for any Nintendo console, and you fail to see that!? Also you are constantly negative about Switch itself, games, lineup...even before Switch launch, and almost year later you still have same story like Switch is selling bad or that dont have any releases, completly ignoring fact that Switch itself and Switch games are seeing great. Talking about ignoring reality.

In the end, Nintendo's streamlining development strategy hasn't really paid off in a meaningful way.

You remember it wrong. Additionally, Nintendo has four all-new games for Switch in the first half of 2018.

The two Labo Kits.

It's irrelevant whether people like Labo or not, in a sales discussion they cannot be dismissed as non-existent.