Deletion of Heaven Sent Gaming

Comment: Note that these are  votes from new accounts with few edits.  Please stop voting multiple times, guys
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Per nom. |Notability failure. I'm not seeing the required |significant coverage in |reliable |independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:THIRDPARTY)

Comment: meets all requirements of , , and /REF, now I support the Keep side more, after reading other similar AfD discussions, this will more than likely be "No Consensus". This article is new, and requires much more time to incorporate all of the information surrounding the topics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:CMC)

Comment: Notability not established.  requires '''significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources'''. The Albuquerque Tribune is the only reliable, independent secondary source in the article, but the citation is only a |trivial mention
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:TRIVIALMENTION)

Comment: Somehow didn't see the AfD notice and started to write my own, so will just paste it here: Fails . It appears all of the many sources here either published by the organization, social networking sites like LinkedIn, or not about Heaven Sent Gaming but about one of the comics/bands they publish. The WP article seems to focus on the individual titles they happened to publish and seems largely promotional (especially given the sourcing). --&mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: An amazing array of "sources" that fail  in an obvious way, giving us a clear indication of why we have  instead of just counting Google hits.  I was asked to look at the socking and meat puppetry here out of fear that the closing admin might miss it, but the veil is so fine as to resemble The Emperor's New Clothes. I have no concerns that the closer will see through it without effort and instead, I will participate as a fellow editor.  Subject matter fails our |criteria of |notability in a most spectacular and breathtaking fashion. Their work may very well be good, but "good" doesn't make it notable via the criteria at Wikipedia.  It isn't personal, it is just too soon, and no amount of |sockpuppetry and friend stacking can change that fact
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:SOCK)

Comment: Fails . Yes, the article links to a bunch of sources, but they aren't |relaible sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: most delete votes are , ,  and . In fact the very nomination was . This is rediculous. And the most compelling argument is SPA; have you people ever thought that the people interested in this topic value their privacy and don't like to sign up for accounts. I have a very prominent account on here, but user identity has no weight in these discussions. Someone close this as "no consensus". This argument clearly has no end, as of yet, maybe in several months or in in a year we can revisit it in AfD, until then stop tying up the AfD discussions.Special:Contributions/174.50.79.228|174.50.79.228
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BIG||WP:MUST||WP:TRIVCOV||WP:ITSLOCAL||WP:GOOGLEHITS)

Comment: and close this already. Total failure of  made even more obvious by the frenetic behavior in this AfD. There are a few trivial mentions in reliable sources, but those are just that: trivial. Everything else is in unreliable sources. Nobody in favor of keeping has articulated a cogent reason for keeping, nor provided any evidence of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)