Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy Wheels


 * 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. Per WP:GNG joe deckertalk to me 19:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy Wheels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article is, to be frank, a mess.


 * Most of the "Characters" list is in-universe information.
 * Gameplay is more of a walkthrough/how-to guide, using second person ("you") way too many times, which is not allowed.
 * In-game death is also a how-to guide using second person.
 * Level Editor is also, you guessed it, a how-to guide. All of the above is over-detailed per WP:VGN.
 * The sources are outright terrible: the game itself, obviously unreliable fansite on Webs.com, YouTube videos, the game's own wiki, and user submitted reviews — including a review given on TV Tropes of all places.
 * There are no hits for "Happy Wheels" + "Total Jerkface" nor "Happy Wheels" + "Flash" + "Game" on Google News.
 * The site it's hosted on, Total Jerkface, does not appear to meet WP:WEB — "Total Jerkface" by itself shows no hits on Google News.

In short, the article does not assert notability in any way; it is heavily laden with fancruft and inappropriate tone; and the sources fail WP:RS completely. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, this is a mess. You explained everything very nicely, they use "you" way too much, they use "you" too much, and they also use "you" waaay too much. Now yall come back now, ya hear? Theshywillraindeath (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per failing WP:GNG -- no independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the game. Re nomination: article quality does not relate to notability, and poor articles may be notable just as decently-written articles can be non-notable. WP:GAMECRUFT is a content issue, not notability issue. But other than that, the sources present indeed fail WP:RELIABLE and I can't find any usable ones. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the above that it fails WP:GNG. The sources given are first party, links to the wikia page about the game, and a page with user reviews (well, one review).  That sort of coverage is not the kind needed to make a topic notable. Millermk90 (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I was ready to assert plenty of sources for this game since I know it spread by word of mouth on gaming sites, but on actual searching, no one really has talked about it from reliable sources - I guess it was just a game popularized by word of mouth. I see nothing that can be easily be salvaged to merge, or even a possible merge target. --M ASEM  (t) 16:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really sure. Judging by the nomination we could keep it if it got more sources, such as Google News, and if it was better edited. It became better-known through Nova's videos but there aren't really a source for them. Kind of a shame, but if it really becomes even more notable than before, then it should be recreated in a better format. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I love the game, but I agree with Thylacinus cynocephalus. This game hasn't yet come to its zenith of notability that would merit an article. And when it does, it needs to be far better formatted than it is now. Inter  change  able  16:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure anything can justify this article given the lack of sourcing. Popularity isn't notability sadly so even with sourcing, it'd still have to show that. tutterMouse (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete fails wp:GNG due to lack of sufficient coverage.--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  11:40, 15 May 2012 (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.