Deletion of Respawn Entertainment

Comment: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7596394/Call-of-Duty-creators-at-war.html Telegraph, http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3178759 1UP etc. But until they actually produce something, this could be a case of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SINGLEEVENT)

Comment: They may become as big as microsoft or as small as some bloke what wrotes games in his back room.  come in here, as far as I know we do not have articels on  things that may be notable one day, we have artciels on things that are notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: The ''event'' is notable here, not the company.  I have no bias against recreation once it passes 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP)

Comment: having notable founders is not sufficient for the company to meet . The company has not been subject to coverage by independent |reliable sources (in fact, the article simply cites one article mentioning its founding. Up to this point, speculation of the company going to "be big" is simply |crystal balling. Until such evidence showing that it can "stand on its own two feet" and satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for |verifiability and |corporate notability, this article should wait and be a non-presence here (suggestion to those who wish this article maintained: please resist to speculate on how big the company will be, but please add evidence of the company's significance - cited, of course - to the article. Arguments of the "more notable than X" variety generally become more reasons to delete both topics than reasons to save either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:RS||WP:CBALL||WP:V||WP:CORP)