Deletion of Spellcross

Comment: The existing sources are sufficient to meet .  Further sources are also likely to exist though they may not be in English.  Also, the suggestion that  applies is not correct but is also beside the point because GNG is clearly met here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPRODUCT)

Comment: The reason is that this is a product, and  is a subset of NCORP and it is expected that they follow the same CORPDEPTH and ORGIND requirements like businesses. If there is an appropriate merge target, I am perfectly fine with  and merge into one of those
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPRODUCT||WP:ATD)

Comment: The above two reviews are not |significant coverage but together with https://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/spellcross/mobyrank those nine magazine reviews listed at MobyGames, there is plenty of source material for this topic. (not Help:Watchlist|watching, please {{tl|ping
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: as a notable video game passing  with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as /RS-compatible magazines identified above. Power Play, Gamestar, PC Games, etc. are all reliable contemporary publications (and most can be accessed with Internet Archive). —&nbsp;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:VG)