Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summertime Saga

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Proposed improvements can be made to the existing draft. I note that despite the assertion that the article is under construction, no additional improvements of substance have been made in the period of this deletion discussion. BD2412 T 00:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summertime Saga

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; cannot find much of reliable sourcing to warrant an article. The corresponding draft at Draft:Summertime Saga has already been denied as "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." – Pbrks ^(t • c) 21:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 21:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly WP:SALT against recreation as being created as an attempt to avoid AfC for an obviously non-notable article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not finished yet. More details are now being added Gintong pluma (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The PC Gamer article is a very good start. However, that alone doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and the other article is sponsored, making it lacking in independent sourcing. Please post your WP:THREE best sources here (they can be foreign sources, just have to be reliable, independent sources), otherwise my !vote stands. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn’t the development ongoing? I don’t think it’s notable now, but maybe wait for a more finished release? Dronebogus (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn’t notable at this point it would make more sense to delete the article until there is enough coverage.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2022 (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.