Deletion of Dream Pod 9

Comment: Came here from a closed DRV. Can a company be notable for having products which were reviewed given ? The only potentially significant coverage of the company I've seen are the two Lien Multimedia articles published within four days of each other, unfortunately require a subscription to view completely, and I'm not sure that's a reliable source, or whether the articles are PR. Many of the links provided above are links to reviews of the company's products and are not of the company themselves. Even if we're going to start accepting self-published academia, Dream Pod 9 is only mentioned once and as a throwaway, which may be a good source for the article but not to demonstrate notability. Even assuming ''Designers & Dragons'' is a good offline source for , there's still not enough here to pass . If anyone has offline sources which discuss the company and not the company's products, please let me know. I also don't mind if the game-specific prose gets merged into its respective game
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG||WP:NORG)

Comment: Also here from the closed DRV. The article fails to meet NCORP/GNG per source analysis. Appelcline's chapter (if it's an ; I don't have confidence in that RSN thread) focuses on DP9's predecessor Ianus, and on DP9's product line, but not on the company DP9 itself. Moby Games is user-generated content. Liem Multimedia is a local trade publication interviewing the president of a local company in the trade. The Alexandrian (assuming it's a valid ), ICv2 and Engadget are product announcements. Dragon is a product review. All the other links in this AfD are brief mentions, mostly in product reviews. Notable products don't make a company notable. We don't have even basic information about this company, such as it's incorporation date, ownership, management, number of employees, units sold, revenue, distribution, and so forth. The company's notable products already have articles, like Heavy Gear. The company's Silhouette game system a.k.a. SilCORE is already covered at Heavy Gear#Silhouette CORE RPG Rules. "Dream Pod 9" is probably a useful search term, though, so it should be kept as a redirect to the company's main product, Heavy Gear. What little is known about the publisher can all be included in a section at Heavy Gear
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:SPS)

Comment: after DRV and relisting: Note that the product review from ''Dragon'' was added after the first Delete response above, and although it was added before the second Delete response (which seemed to misunderstand that the company is still actively producing products the way it once was, although I am not sure if they are even active at all to be honest) and I do not think the user took that source into account.  The relevance in my opinion of that source is not so much that it includes reviews of the games, but that it comments on the Silhouette system, which does not have its own article, and is the core element of the company's games, and I believe that an independent source such as that is necessary to include in the article so that we have more about the Silhouette system.  I added the source ''Designers & Dragons'' after both delete votes, which contains several pages of information and commentary on the company.  I will AGF from Hobit's response that the self-published "Dice Rolling Mechanisms in RPGs" comes from a reliable author in the field of CS math.  I believe that the commentary from "Next Generation" magazine – an independent reliable source from the video game industry – is most useful in its contrasting the smaller DP9 with the much larger FASA, as the video game publisher at the time had gone from licensing FASA's BattleTech to DP9's Heavy Gear.  I have not seen the "PC Gamer" source to know what it says about the company.  I believe that the above is enough to meet the minimum for the , and thus I affirm my initial Keep, although if consensus ultimately disagrees with me, then I think we have enough to show that rather than deleting it should be '''merged''' somewhere.  Meanwhile, I will see what else I can do to find more sources for this topic, which are likely not easily found online due to how long ago this company was at its peak
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: In reaffirming my delete !vote I examined all the newly added sources (or those mentioned in the AfD, such as the personal Wordpress blog/online resume of an aspiring actor named Justin Alexander "TheAlexandrian.net" https://thealexandrian.net/about/acting-resume) and found that, in each case, they amounted to single line mentions of the company or were in objectively non-RS outlets, therefore, did not meet . I also found
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)