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. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Team[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced, promotional article about a company that fail the ORGDEPTH notability guideline. Previously speedily deleted and then recreated with largely the same content. While a few of the games from this company may be notable, I'm unable to find any reliable, independent sources that substantively cover the subject . - Mr X 12:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no reliable independent sources covering the subject. Vaca tion 9 18:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this company's games seem to be notable but the company itself has not received any substantive coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2013 (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.