Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devillusion

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devillusion

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

Fails WP:CORP/WP:N and WP:V: Non-notable game developer with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've looked through the WikiProject Video games guide to sources and found nothing. Using the WikiProject Video games custom Google search returns a number of hits but they're for the "dev[eloper] Illusion", not this company at all. The single claim to fame is being ~~an exhibitor at a notable LAN party, which anyone can do according to the Dreamhack exhibitor site~~ a partner for a notable LAN party, which doesn't even approach "significant coverage" in independent, reliable sources as required by WP:CORP. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cgenetwork, f2pgames and mmogamesite are not sources we should be using. Two hits on Google News - a press release, and a chinese site that sources BBGsite, which isn't promising. Marasmusine (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see that the sources I used are not valid enough. Sorry, I did not realise that those sources were not to be used on wikipedia. Markliamm (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable, significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2010 (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.