Crush Crush: QuietCicada ( talk ) 13:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  QuietCicada ( talk ) 13:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete It got a review from Softpedia and PCGamer .  Still, this is considered pretty weak and the other articles are mostly interview.  To me it doesn't get over the notability bar, although I could understand people ! voting either way.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Softpedia review is a good find, but the PCGamer one is just two paragraphs in a longer list.  QuietCicada ( talk ) 16:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep I was actually working on a rewrite of this article and was able to find some more sources, but admittedly the coverage is pretty slim.  Crush Crush has a bunch of spinoffs and crossovers, and if you look at the whole "series" there's probably enough coverage to justify an article, but it could go either way.   Guess I'll wait and see how this AFD goes before I spend any more time on the rewrite.  CurlyWi ( talk ) 16:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Series articles require coverage on the series as a whole, simply putting together a bunch of non-notable games would still not make it pass notability.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Articles like this one and this one do discuss the overall series.  Hardcore Gamer covered it, but it's a 1 paragraph nothing article.  Crunchyroll News has an article on the game, but I can't find any discussions evaluating them as a source, so your mileage may vary.  Jay is Games did a review but they're listed as a situational source that doesn't demonstrate notability, so that doesn't help us.  RPGfan did another article on the spinoffs, so that's only helpful if it's a series article.   I dunno, I think it could go either way.   There's probably enough sources to scrape together a half decent article, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if it got deleted either.  CurlyWi ( talk ) 21:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, we're talking about a bunch of trivial mentions here, you can't somehow combine them to make significant coverage.  And so far, the only secondary, non-primary SIGCOV I've seen are two short review.  This does not pass GNG.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep , I'm with CurlyWi on this one...  There does appear to be barely enough significant coverage to scrape together an article Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 23:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete It's in a weird case of being slightly known about, but not really notable or enough said about it to achieve notability.  I just don't think it's there. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 04:16, 6 October 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: delete