Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogue Initiative

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 speedy delete. G11, promotional DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Initiative[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable company by our standards. The coverage isn't there, and it's hard to tell what they actually accomplished. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From this video games reliable sources search, I might suggest there is indeed reliably sourced coverage of this company (and thus notability). Especially, this USA Today article introduces in-depth coverage, which is presently the 3rd citation in the article. Keep. --Izno (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but it "introduces" coverage? I'm not sure what that means. This USA Today article has six paragraphs, three of which aren't about the subject, and the other three (it explicitly says) simply rehash a press release--even the quote from the "veteran filmmaker" comes straight out of the PR clipping. So it's not in-depth anything (and it's lousy "journalism" too). Drmies (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are a mixture of pages barely mentioning Rogue Initiative, PR and other promotional and publicity sites, etc. Written as a promotional article on a non-notable subject, toned down by later editors, but still without the sourcing required to show notability by Wikipedia's standards. Also, in a Google search, almost all the first couple of pages of hits are PR sites, non-independent and/or non-reliable sources such as the company's own web site, LinkedIn, FaceBook, Wikipedia, pressreleasejet.com, etc. Really no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still a year-within newly started company with nothing suggesting the needed solid independent notability as its own article. Delete and we can wait for better perhaps some years from now. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 27 May 2016 (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.