Deletion of The People's Cube

Comment: If anyone really thinks that a double standard isn't being used regarding "reliable sources" and "notability", I invite you to look at any of the uncountable articles about the Pokemon video game series, such as Bulbasaur evolutionary line - the scientific guide to the various species of Pokemons. Here you will find a taxonomic chart that includes the full evolutionary sequence (Squirtle evolves into Wartortle; Mega Lizardon X does not evolve, and so on). What do you suppose the "reliable sources" are for this chart? Scientific journals? Biology textbooks? CNN?  No, most of it comes from the game company's own "Pokedex". There are tens of thousands of similar articles dealing with other video games, using sources that most of the people here would not consider reliable but which are usually deemed usable for that type of context. Don't accuse me of  because articles like these are practically the norm, not exceptional cases. I fully expect the Deletionists to go through and get rid of all of these articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: This appears to have been exciting! -but, unnecessarilly so.  is perfecly clear: It has to be {{green|the subject of multiple non-trivial published works}}- and not {{green|trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content}} in the sources. Unfortunately, that is all we have here- as they only give (at most) {{green|a brief summary of the nature of the content}}. No  or  of coverage, and no major awards, etc., won either, which is another relevant condition. Hence this article fails both  generally and  particularly. Cheers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT||WP:DEPTH||WP:PERSISTENCE||WP:GNG||WP:NWEB)