Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rogue Initiative

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough refs for notability IMO. And promotional/ Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Unconvinced - if it were cut strictly to claims in RSes it would be a paragraph, most of that about investments - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG, also very CRYSTAL, and there just isn't any indication of notability. Production in entertainment is hard to source, period.  The nature of the work keeps it more or less out of the public eye, much closer to a "crew" role than a directorial or artistic role.  All that being said, they haven't done anything, and until that happens, the whole thing could just as well close up shop tomorrow and it wouldn't make a difference, and a failed venture isn't notable. MSJapan (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's WP:TOOSOON. The only hard info is that the organization has been created and some celebrities are somehow associated with it. There are mentions in the Hollywood Reporter and IGN reporting its creation. When they ship something and it gets reviewed, they'll be notable. Patience. John Nagle (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON. There's nothing substantial in the article, per the available sources, apart that the entity exists. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.