Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afterlife Empire


 * 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 move to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Afterlife Empire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced and non-notable PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete case of WP:TOOSOON. I only found two articles on GamePolitics.com about it. — Strongjam (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know about incubate. Sounds perfect to me. — Strongjam (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment if this does get deleted I'd like to request the admin relocate it to my userspace so that I can compile any future references that might appear for it. If the game moves from Greenlit to actual release, then more coverage may result and allow me to build the page to a size where, if anyone seems appropriate, they could see it as adequate justification to re-create at that future time. Ranze (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * incubate right now there is nothing notable about the subject itself, merely the controversy surrounding the players involved and the controversy is covered in the articles about thosee players. It seems possible that there will be coverage of the game itself after its release in which case the controversy about its funding etc would be a notable feature. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * sounds like a good idea actually. I forgot all about WP:AI aka WP:LIMBO. I think I ran across it a while ago but it's hard to remember the terms. Plus the process is a bit hard to get familiar with. I am agreeable to an administrator moving to an incubator... I think I might have even done this before for some other page. Can't recall which. This may be preferable to leaving it on userspace. Ranze (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * per TRPoD. Seems like a perfect use of Limbo. Grayfell (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do'h! Since, as Ryk72 points out, incubator has been closed for months, move to Draft instead. Grayfell (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - the WP:Article Incubator is now closed down. The suggestion there is to consider WP:DRAFTS instead. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: Arguably, this is an attempt at getting in first to write the article. That's the charitable view. The cynical view, is this is back to the old idea that having a Wikipedia article is an ersatz form of advertising, with the Wikipedia page providing boosterism for competition in the marketplace. I'm sure the capitalist economics of ghost cartels will catch on (ummm), but only after it has would there be a need for a description. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep but support drafting or merging better. GamePolitics is a reliable source, and this article is completely fair to describe the game. But between that and a second GP article that lacks much additional detail (once the game passed Greenlight), there's not much else yet. It could be merged to The Fine Young Cannibals page for now, or put to draft, once we see what type of sources that could come out. However, deletion is not appropriate since this a searchable term and does have potential for an articles. --M ASEM  (t) 03:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GamePolitics is a reliable source? Was there even consensus of it being one? GamerPro64  05:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of one, though it is managed by the Entertainment Consumers Association with editorial oversight. Regardless, the only potential RSes are coming from that site, and that's just at the cusp. If the game is going to be coming to Steam (since it's been greenlighted), and it's got weak ties to the GG situation, its likely bound to get more notice, hence drafting or merging may be better until that happens. --M ASEM (t) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete but thinks that moving this to the users page or making a draft would be a good idea. -- ☣  Anar chyte  ☣ 09:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to TFYC and put some info about the fact that this game exists in there.Bosstopher (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Fine Young Capitalists as a likely search term for now. It will probably get reviews and coverage after it's released. —Torchiest talkedits 00:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The game may have been tengentially involved in part in a dispute, but it need not be relegated to a footnote. If anything, that only increases its notariety. It hardly needs further advertizing given its reception on steam greenlight, and I do not think that it is a valid criticism to suggest as much. Keep the page and let it grow. Even StarCraft's page started small. Xenomancer (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But when Starcraft's article was created, it had been out for years and had been the best selling game of 1998. Afterlife Empire has yet to reach that stature. Bosstopher (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2015 (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.