The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secretaccount 17:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutral. I searched a few Game News websites for news items about "Trine Games". I found lots of items about Trine (video game), but nothing useful for writing an acceptable article: GamesRadar: no hits; Gamespot: 0; Gamespy: 1 very short company profile; GameZone: no hits; IGN: 1 very short company profile. Maybe Trine Games will be notable one day — I'd like to see that — but they're not WikiNotable yet. CWC 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from "Delete" to "Neutral" after seeing SharkD's comment below. I'm not convinced yet about Trine Games, but it seems to me we should have an article about Trine Entertainment, the parent company. CWC 05:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as a section of the notable Trine Entertainment.--M4gnum0n (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per M4gnum0n as I don't think this is notable enough yet for its own article. ArcAngel (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (perhaps as Trine Entertainment, including information about Trine Animation, too). Coverage linked to by SharkD is enough to build up a good article. Marasmusine (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find much on the individual website sources given to see if they would even be reliable sources. I don't see it being particularly notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.