Snoot Game: I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards I believe this article does not meet the requirements of notability to justify its existence, this can be seen in all four provided references (and all sources available on the internet, for that matter) as none of them talk directly about Snoot Game, but rather talk about it in the context of its criticism towards Goodbye Volcano High .  Therefore I believe that keeping this topic as just a mention in GVH's article is enough.  My original PROD was endorsed twice: once by Zxcvbnm mentioning that it fails WP:GNG which I agree with, and once more by QuicoleJR mentioning that there is no significant coverage, which I also agree with.  The PROD was contested six days after the original proposition by User:CJ-Moki , the author of the article, citing an inconclusive discussion on the talk page.
 I believe that this article should be deleted because there is zero coverage ‘‘about’’ it.  There is only coverage about its controversy regarding the game that it is parodying, and therefore it is unsuitable for Wikipedia.  Galo223344 ( talk ) 22:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Goodbye Volcano High , I believe coverage of the controversy in question is perhaps notable enough for a subsection on the Goodbye Volcano High page.  CJ-Moki ( talk ) 22:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed.  However, any mention of Snoot Game in GVH’s article has been reverted for one reason or another, so it'd have to be discussed on it's talk page.  Galo223344 ( talk ) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge into Goodbye Volcano High as WP:ATD , but it very clearly and obviously fails WP:GNG for its own page.  WP:NOTCENSORED so at the very least it should have a (named) mention due to the Kotaku article, despite being highly controversial.  Semi-protection may be needed to keep it from being removed.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Goodbye Volcano High , makes sense to mention there, but not independently notable.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 13:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - This is not notable enough for its own page, and I don't feel it's even notable for Goodbye Volcano High , so a merge is unnecessary.  The "event" was a small troll campaign that barely got any attention outside of 4chan and the game's fandom, resulting in one Kotaku article.  Per WP:DUE , there's no point over-inflating the importance of that troll campaign by adding it to the article about the game.  — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 15:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are 3 different (non-cross-referencing) sources mentioning Snoot Game by name in relation to Goodbye Volcano High.  https://eip.gg/news/goodbye-volcano-high-visual-novels-pax/ https://www.canardpc.com/jeu-video/a-venir-jeu-video/goodbye-volcano-high-2/ https://kotaku.com/goodbye-volcano-high-ko_op-snoot-game-4chan-ps4-ps5-1849731598 And here are 3 more that reference the Kotaku article https://www.queerty.com/despite-years-long-troll-campaign-lgbtq-developers-keep-creating-super-queer-video-game-20221106 https://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/altright-game-steals-assets-from-lgbtq-indie-title/news-story/da0b481f22f8b32d01a97ce4ca5d222d https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/07/goodbye-volcano-high-snoot-game-4chan/ I'd say that this alone warrants at the very least a mention in the article (Now sure if an entire section, but still).  But going more informally: If you search for Goodbye Volcano High in Google, the first autocomplete suggestions include "Goodbye Volcano High 4chan" and "Goodbye Volcano High Snoot Game", if you search on Youtube "Goodbye Volcano High" and sort by popularity out of the first 4 results, two of them are about Snoot Game, the 8th one being Snoot Game's trailer.  This shows that at the very least there is a little bit of relevance about Snoot Game in relation to Goodbye Volcano High.  Galo223344 ( talk ) 16:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The EIP.gg article barely touches on the topic, even noting I am not going to give Snoot Game more coverage than it is worth.  I cannot comment on the CanardPC link, as I do not speak French and it appears to be paywalled.  Other articles referencing the Kotaku article don't strike me as persuasive, just that other outlets are pointing out Kotaku's work.  And we don't go by Google Search completion results, so that's a non-starter.  Overall, I still don't see that there's enough relevant content here to require a merge.  Here's the crux of my argument: this was a flash-in-the pan trolling campaign by 4chan (which are a dime a dozen), and which did not create enough interest outside of the game's fandom to be WP:DUE for inclusion in the article.  Placing this into the article is giving far too much weight to an event which had no real impact on the game's development, and didn't cause much more than a ripple around its marketing.  Maybe after this is deleted we could discuss a single-sentence mention of the campaign in the game's article, but that's a matter for Talk:Goodbye Volcano High .  There's no need to merge in anything from this article.  — The Hand That Feeds You : Bite 17:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies.  The CanardPC article used to be free, you can read it here [1] Galo223344 ( talk ) 20:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Saying things like "it is not worth covering" indicates wanting to WP:CENSOR the article to protect the original game, which is understandable but doesn't factor into Wikipedia policy at all.  WP:UNDUE is based on something's relative coverage in reliable sources, and there is an entire large Kotaku article, as well as mentions elsewhere, linking the two games.  If RS believed it to be small and not worth noting, they would probably have ignored it.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 23:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: merge