Deletion of Bell of Lost Souls

Comment: A summary for the record for whomever has to ultimately make a judgement on this: The article was submitted for deletion for lack of secondary sources regarding community size and industry notability.  Sources were researched and added addressing the original deletion reasons. 3rd parties arrive, levy additional assertions against the article, its author, and delete 1/3 of it.  Fundamentally the data in the article is what matters, NOT the author.  If an article is fundamentally sound as above user has stated, except for the newness of the author, then any experienced user should feel free to delete it and resubmit it themselves. Charges of  innately smack of favoritism and clannish behavior - not empirical analysis. Additional charge of a single defender has no weight (but thanks for trying - apparently Wikipedia's own rules regarding weight of numbers in these decisions needs to be brushed up on).  Article in question was posted 24 hours ago, and thus far all comments have been from users who professionally troll the deletion logs (easily verified by their activity logs).  With a community of the purported size listed in the article, it would take 10 minutes for this log to have thousands of defending comments here - which also should have no weight. Long story short - original arguments for deletion addressed, new arguments devised, ad infinitum
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: It is a pure  by a  who is its sole defender
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Advertising (WP:ADVERT||WP:SPA)

Comment: Mostly per Tokyogirl; The website is not notable enough. Its existence has not been discussed in reliable third party sources, so we almost relay purely upon first party sources to determine the website existence and information. This, therefore, fails the correspondent criteria, : "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". It fails to achieve any of those
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT)

Comment: A search brought up only http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId%3D8437186 this brief mention in 1Up.com, but it's far from being an in-depth source about the website. There is nothing out there that appears to be both independent and reliable that shows notability for this website. The thing about websites is that you don't inherit notability by working with or reviewing notable products or notable companies. Notability is not inherited. You could be gaming with Rick Priestly every night and he could have the site's name tattooed over his heart. That doesn't give the site notability, although such a thing would probably make it more likely that it would gain coverage in reliable sources. That's all that association with notable persons or companies really does- just make it more likely that the site will gain coverage in RS. Given that we have a lack of coverage, the website just doesn't pass . I have no extreme problems with the article being userfied, but given that you are new and aren't as savvy on notability, I'd recommend that you get some help from one of the various Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games|wikiprojects for games before reposting the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)