Deletion of Euphoria (visual novel)

Comment: I am still undecided. Daiichi1 did some great finds, as both sources he cited have non-trivial coverage of the VN and seem reliable. However,  says "'''Multiple publications from the same''' author or '''organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.'''" And that is the case here, where both are owned by the same organization, Cyzo. So we'd still need more, and I will try to check all possible Japanese sources and hope to find something. ANN citations above do not establish notability, as the first one is citing the announcement, and the second one is an actual press release (
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: It's safe to say that major outlets wouldn't cover this due to its extreme subject matter. Whether you think that's a flaw of the notability system that something disgusting but with high production values could get ignored, the fact is that it would undoubtedly be considered non-notable and fails  with the current sources provided
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The above sources do not constitute |significant coverage. It would be impossible to write an article that does justice to the topic based on the above sources: The ANN articles cannot be cited for anything, being a press release and an "article" that almost entirely quotes another source. Someone with a stronger stomach than me can wade through the Cyzo articles' reliability, but those citations are not strong enough on which to base an entire encyclopedia article.{{br}}As for the argument above, no, the GNG applies to this topic as it universally applies across WP as policy. There are many topics subject to systemic bias on WP based on cultural import and lack of third-party coverage and yet extreme eroge is not one of them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: and '''do not draftify'''. Fails . None of the sources mentioned above are significant ''and'' reliable ''and'' independent—and, in fact, most are ''none'' of those. I looked for sources with the  custom Google searches and found nothing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GAMESOURCES)

Comment: Like I said before in the discussion, I tried to look for native sources to establish notability. Sadly, I wasn't able to find anything aside from Cyzo coverage, making a fail of  which requires multiple reliable significant coverage of the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: is a solid decision at this point. At this point it is safe to say that numerous sources point to the same mark. While individually they may not follow the "trusted source" guidelines, the sheer number and the fact that &M/I totally lacks any coverage of eroge sourcing that may be used are less relevant. As a side note, the unhealthy issue of no trusted sources for eroge content must be addressed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)