Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Tree Friends Arcade Games

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tree Friends Arcade Games

This is a list of non-notable Flash games that will probably never have the potential to become more significant than they are now. If Happy Tree Friends episodes and characters do not warrant Wikipedia articles, there surely should not be an entire article about minigames. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 17:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — Yes, I have seen that the main Happy Tree Friends has been deleted, so it does make sense that this be, as well. MuZemike (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tree Friends hasn't been deleted. 0.o Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaahh, Shazbot! Maybe it was the wrong article I looked at on the deletion log the other day. MuZemike (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you were looking at the hoax movie, Happy Tree Friends: It's Largest, Biggest, Longest and Cutest. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I'm sorry. MuZemike (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Close AfD and wait~~. The AfD nomination is flawed, in that just because something else has been deleted doesn't mean we should either delete or keep anything else. The sole reason that this AfD should be considered is because of lack of notable sources that are verifable. The article is one day old. Nobody has had a chance to check sources. I think this AfD is yet another example of wasting time, if the article requires a speedy delete nominate it for that. If it does not pass the Speedy delete, then wait a few months before nominating for deletion. If you don't like the article, challenge yourself to do a google search for some references. Having said all that, I'm personally not sure this article will meet the standards for notability, and there is no claim in the article of notability, and would probably vote delete in spit of the obvious flaws with how this AfD came to be. Icemotoboy (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete. But I'm still grumpy! (lol) Icemotoboy (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. It reminds me of the infamous Pokémon test. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's the names of flash games available from a website, article serves no purpose whatsoever. A quick search turns up nothing except articles related to this. Someone another 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete almost nonsense. You said it Dad (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to just generally say WP:NOT, but this article fails so many different subparts of it (WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY...) that it's all I can say. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.