Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Nights at Wario's


 * 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 speedy delete. G7 following comment here from author Ged  UK  15:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Five Nights at Wario's

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG due to no independent reliable sources. Contested PROD. –– FormalDude  (talk)  05:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC) –– FormalDude   (talk)  05:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. –– FormalDude   (talk)  05:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am the creator. Five Nights at Wario's is one of the most popular FNaF parodies. I was able to find a few more sources, as seen in my edits made after I contested the PROD. I actually do need a bit more time to finish - if you look at my user page I am a bit busy right now. Thank you. Ulysses Grant Official 05:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable fan game. Andre🚐 05:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is the only reliable source I could locate, which is not enough for notability. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 08:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per others. "I need time to find sources" is not a logical argument, the sources should have already been found before creating the article. But it seems that there are none out there that prove notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Minor, non-notable, WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT failing game. None of the refs are RS, the Kotaku one is routine and non-SIGCOV. The creator's WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument is unconvincing. VickKiang (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete both WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT, Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy SNOW Delete The contents of this article are poor, written like an advertisement in some areas, No Reliable or secondary sources at all, Article uses very poor grammer, Article is likely beyond repair. Articles author is suggesting a G7 Speedy Deletion. PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 20:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Honestly, I could care less at this point, just delete it. I can't find the time to edit it, but since that can't be accepted, just delete it at this point. Ulysses Grant Official 05:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - it fails the GNG, and I don't believe any amount of revisions by the creator is likely to change that right now. Sergecross73   msg me  11:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.