@curl-6 started a good thread about if Xbox One a good console in its own right. Xbox One does not have a great reputation, but it's not like it had nothing to play.

Wii U sold less than Xbox One and had a shorter lifespan. Also, a lot fewer games at retail and digitally. That obviously doesn't inherently mean quality is worse, just saying.

Was the Wii U a good console, or were its disappointments too many to consider it at least good? 

It was a disappointment, and I had a great time with it.

It was for me and my family. In fact, it was our favorite during that generation.

It was ok

It had better exclusives than Xbox One by far. Nintendo's regular first party games. The best Mario Kart up to that point in 8. Xenoblade Chronicles X. Bayonetta 2 the best in the series. Tokyo Mirage Sessions. A lot of great exclusives at the time but the hardware just sucked. Slow UI. Minutes could go by before the thing would go to the home screen. The tablet wasn't a great idea. Nintendo didn't even know what to do with Wii U, and if they don't even know then it's doomed. Great games. Bad hardware and bad user experience. The games prevented it from being a Virtual Boy 2. At least it ended on BoTW but I know most bought that on Switch.

For the most part it was an acquired taste, and a unique experience for better AND worse. I am glad it existed, and I cherish it.... But the extensive droughts, the underpowered hardware, the weak online, the clunky gamepad adding little gameplay value in general. It saw the birth of Splatoon and had Mario Kart 8 on it which is huge, and the switch as a concept built over the gamepad concept but much better, but there was a LOT of things wrong in the console itself and the marketing choices surrounding it.

Edit: I would call it "the best terrible console to ever exist".

I liked it, I thought the tablet controller was the best bit. But Nintendo did nothing with it to be honest.

In terms of overall system design it was truly awful, probably the worst-ever console from a major manufacturer.

In terms of game library however, it’s hard to deny that Nintendo and their associated developers bought their A-game. And the gamepad did highlight the utility of off-screen play.

Subjective, obviously. It has a lot of poor design choices but something like Atari 5200 and Atari Jaguar were worse. Granted, maybe you don't consider Atari major. Virtual Boy was a worse design, for sure. It's not really a home console, or really much of a handheld either. It's a tabletop contraption. 

But the fact that I had to reference two Atari consoles and the weird Virtual Boy in a way proves your point more.

I have to say, Wii U's backwards compatibility seems like an issue with the console's architecture. Nintendo put the Wii hardware into the design of Wii U so it would play natively. Thus, PowerPC was used again (as it had been in GCN and Wii). Wii U's CPU is so slow, even slower than 360 and PS3. And that has real-world implications. Some Wii U multiplats have more frame drops than older consoles like 360 and PS3. Wii U having more RAM and a better GPU than those consoles isn't really enough of a real-world boost most of the time.

Publishers only want to work with frustrating or weak hardware if there is a return on investment. PS2 was easily the hardest sixth generation console to develop for (that includes three other consoles) and yet look at how many games came to it. Wii U just wasn't worth the hassle for most. 

If Atari sold a bag of broken glass it would b the same experience as buying a new a 5200 and Jaguar CD.