Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell of Lost Souls
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
— User:Lactoad12, 06:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SPA (Wikipedia:Single-purpose account)