Deletion of Green Ronin Publishing

Comment: You are correct, and I didn't evaluate those closely enough. However, it strikes me as odd that they aren't covered more - I swear I've seen things about them in RS. I'll give it a better shot later, but for right now my only argument would be , so I'm going to be neutral here. My only request is that there not be a |snow delete before the 7 days are up, so that I can have time to fix it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITEXISTS||WP:SNOW)

Comment: in order, those are: a press release (never a |reliable source, nor evidence of notability); a passing mention (one paragraph about one book) in a journalist's GenCon article); and one paragraph in a gaming website writer's blog
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (:WP:RS)

Comment: Look at the Google News links above: there's tons of coverage such that it meets , and failure of an SNG does not disqualify an article for existence if the GNG is met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I think that falls under . Publishers of notable works, even authors of notable non-fiction works, may not necessarily be notable, even though the works are. The late lamented TSR for which I wrote, and even EGG himself, are nowhere as notable to non-gamers as D&D itself was (and is
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (:WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)