Highway Blossoms: Everything else is rather trivial, or from somewhere that isn't vetted as reliable.  The reception is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel to make it SEEM notable, but the sources don't support that.  (See WP:SIGCOV ) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 00:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The two Hardcore Gamer , first TheGamer , and PCGamesN sources establish GNG.  You may want to call most of the other sources "trivial", but I would say they are simply supplemental sources that help cite sentences in the article that if left unsourced would be silly and unhelpful.  The only source that isn't currently vetted as reliable as per WP:VG/RS is the Inverse one but that source is listed as having inconclusive discussions on that issue.  The two discussions lead me to believe that it should be treated as at least situationally reliable.  I would lean to voting reliable if a new discussion on it was added to WP:VG/RS .  This article existed for about 15 hours before being tagged with an AFD and I'm not necessarily anti-deletion but I don't see how these taggings help.  The subject is not egregiously or blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia, and it's honestly akin to a stub article right now.  Not letting it have a moment to breathe, as I planned to look for some more sources in addition to the ones I already found, is not entirely constructive in my opinion.  Soulbust ( talk ) 04:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TheGamer is a situational source in WP:VG/S - it's not applicable to establish notability due to its notoriety as a content mill.  I should also point you directly to WP:GNG , where it says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."  You can't use two Hardcore Gamer sources to count towards the requirement of multiple sources.  Regardless of whether the article is under construction, you made it in main space rather than as a draft, which seems to indicate that you believe it can stand on its own in its current state.  Still, my own search didn't find anything so I find it fairly unlikely they exist at all.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I should also add that Highway Blossoms gets a very brief shout-out in the Inverse article; which gives slightly more opinions about the studio's later games though I'm not sure I'd call any one game in the article significant coverage.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TheGamer is situationally reliable yes.  But its usage in this article is still suitable as both references sourced by TheGamer are after August 2020 - as per WP:VG/RS, "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable."  If you want to count the Hardcore Gamer as one source, that's fine fine.  It still establishes GNG, along with the PCGamesN source.  Probably all articles can be called "under construction", so that's not really my main point.  But this article was just made, and especially in that case, I would ask does deletion of this article help , at least this soon?  Soulbust ( talk ) 05:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per WP:GNG : for significant coverage, the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  Highway Blossoms has about the same amount of coverage in Inverse that it does in PCGamesN .  Its coverage in the former is direct and in detail, satisfying GNG, and furthermore offers sourcing on a pretty noteworthy pieces of information, namely why the writer sought to work on the game, and that the game's reception inspired him to found the studio.  I would say this constitutes as helping establish notability .  Soulbust ( talk ) 05:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am normally pretty lenient on games that will probably be notable at some point.  This is not such a case, as Highway Blossoms is a 2016 game - it's unlikely to garner any further RS mentions, especially with the studio moving on to later and greater things.  So, WP:ITSHARMLESS is not really an argument here.  The portion of The Inverse article that is about the game is as follows: Josh Kaplan’s first game, Highway Blossoms, sees a young girl named Amber gradually fall in love with her friend Marina in the American Southwest.  Only a few years out of high school himself at the time, Kaplan wanted to see more yuri visual novels (a subgenre that focuses on female romantic relationships) in the space.  So he co-wrote his own.  This is not significant.  This is hardly even trivial.  And it offers no opinion from the article's writer.  There is no way this counts towards notability.  Even if we did consider TheGamer article reliable, it's also a trivial mention.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 06:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The Inverse source also includes "In 2016, there weren't a whole lot of yuri visual novels available in English, especially on Steam, and the game ended up being unexpectedly successful,” Kaplan tells Inverse. “It found an audience of primarily LGBT readers who appreciated what they felt was a more realistic approach to same-sex relationships."  Inspired by the response to Highway Blossoms, Kaplan founded Studio Élan.  This and the portion you quoted in your reply is short coverage sure, but not trivial .  WP:TRIVIAL also states "On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention . The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view."  That last sentence is important, because the sources provided are valid.  The PCGamesN and Hardcore Gamer sourcing establishes GNG.  For TheGamer , WP:VG/RS is pretty clear that the source is considered reliable post-August 2020, so there is no "even if we did consider TheGamer article reliable" that applies here, as you stated.  The only thing WP:VG/RS advises against is using it to demonstrate notability.  But since, the source is not a trivial mention , it adds as suitable reliable sourcing that helps this article follow the spirit and the letter of the guideline, which is simply to make sure there is enough content to write about from a neutral POV.  Soulbust ( talk ) 07:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Delete per nom.  Starship 24 ( talk ) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC) —

Discussion outcome: withdrawn