Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilization: Beyond Earth - Rising Tide


 * 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Civilization: Beyond Earth - Rising Tide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I actually don't agree with removing this page. This nomination was made to stop an edit war. My reasons for keeping it will be made below, and the approprate people will be contacted. Oldag07 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep- (Note I am the creator of this AFD) I started this page to shave off an edit war. So far, the people who want to turn this page to a redirect to Civilization: Beyond Earth have not used this formal process of discussing the deletion of this page. Instead they have turned this page to a redirect without any debate. This page was originally created, and then moved to the "draftspace". It stayed there for a while until several edits were made a few months later and it passed an WP:AFC. The main arguments for turning this page into a redirect is the fact that it is an "expansion pack" and a "DLC". First off there is an entire category for expansion packs Category:Video game expansion packs so why is this page any different.  On top of this, every single Civilization game expansion has a separate page. The second argument is that this is a DLC only expansion pack.  There are several DLC only expansion packs on Wikipedia.  Take for example Mass Effect 2: Lair of the Shadow Broker.  I quote one of the people who reverted the page into a redirect "I am fine with DLC having their own articles, if they have got a lot of press coverage." The last argument, and in my mind the strongest argument, for this page to be removed is the fact that it doesn't feel "complete". To be honest, I am way past my wikipedia prime, and really don't want to put a lot of time making it a "good article". This topic does have a significant amount of press, and it is notable. We should see it for its WP:POTENTIAL.  Removing it from the mainspace only discourages editors from adding to it. Oldag07 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * History - A short summary of the history of the article:
 * 1) Created October 18, 2015 by
 * 2) Redirected, unredirected then moved to Draftspace by on October 19, 2015
 * 3) Worked on in draftspace by between October 19 and 25, 2015
 * 4) Left unedited since October 25, 2015, then submitted to AfC by on June 17, 2016
 * 5) Accepted at AfC on June 17, 2016 by and moved to mainspace
 * 6) Redirected by on June 21, 2016 by
 * 7) Unredirected on July 9, 2016 by
 * 8) Re-redirected on July 10, 2016 by
 * 9) Re-unredirected on July 11, 2016 by, who also started this AfD procedurally but with a !vote to keep in order to stop the redirect-warring
 * My opinion? It should have been left in draftspace where it was from October-2015 and until RHaworth decided to pull it out of the backstore in June-2016; everybody was content and working on other things. Thus, back to draftspace if there is still desire to work on it, or redirect it if not. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment- I respectfully disagree. There has been plently of press for the game, I just added 3 more sources. It fits the notability requirements. It is consistant with the rest of the civilization pages. Remove his one, and you should logically remove all Civilization expansion set pages, and probably all the Sims and Mass Effect expansion pages also.  Oldag07 (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment- I just made a huge expansion to the gameplay section. It should keep it out of the draftspace, though I might admit, it needs a lot of editing. Oldag07 (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, Merge/Redirect otherwise I was going to state "Merge" but the one thing this article shows is that there was reception for the expansion (its just not expanded out in prose), which I think is a minimum requirement to justify it. Searching around google news, it looks like there's also a handful of development articles from ca. May 2015 that could be pulled into this . But that all said, Civilization: Beyond Earth has plenty of space to expand that merging this into that won't bust the size aspect. --M ASEM (t) 00:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. 39 critic reviews on Metacritic?     reliable. (Each letter = a reference (besides the word reliable). Another one that I couldn't fit into words: )   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   02:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue for a merge discussion. Please do not nominate something to AFD to make a point. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh, the point is to decide what to do with the article: delete, keep, or some other result? Redirect, merge and draftify are all valid AfD outcomes. In theory per BRD the onus of starting the discussion should have been on the reverted redirecter. It's what Czar has been doing as well -- redirect, and if reverted, take it to AfD. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The D in AfD changed from "deletion" to "discussion" (in spirit) when SK#1 changed to no longer prohibit noms that openly advocated for redirection instead of deletion. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  06:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Half of the article's references are just Metacritic and reviews, but the series normally does this for expansions. I say keep, but it could use alot of improvements. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  12:40 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * Keep: I redirected it twice mainly due to the article's lack of content. Why do we need to create a separate page when majority of the information have already been covered in its parent article? I have never doubted the notability of the article, it is just that splitting off the page at that time was unnecessary. Since you have significantly expanded the section, it does not repeat the Beyond Earth subsection anymore, so my reasons in the Beyond Earth talk page aren't accurate anymore. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it should be covered in depth in the main article. Yes, it is independently notable. It has more independent reviews from our vetted, reliable sources than most indie/mobile games. There is more than enough content to write a decent article on this subject. AfD is not cleanup—it is to establish whether sufficient sourcing exists, and it patently does, regardless of what is currently written and whoever (if anyone) will come to write it. Feel free to TNT the parts that are out of general content/verifiability compliance. This is actually a Speedy keep candidate since the nominator did not advance a deletion rationale. czar  06:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the nominator opened the AfD based on two other editor's rationale and intention to redirect. I'd rather let the discussion run its course to provide some sort of resolution to the redirect-warring. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It would seem that one of the reverters, AdrianGamer, seems to have had a change of heart after the recent expansion of he article. SwisterTwister hasn't chimed in yet though.  Oldag07 (talk) 22:10, 12 July 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.