Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/They Are Billions

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 Draftify. ~~If you want a copy moved to your user space please let me know~~ The article can be found at Draft:They Are Billions J04n(talk page) 17:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They Are Billions[edit]

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

This article was un-redirected to its developer. The game is unreleased, meaning it is very unlikely to have multiple reliable sources covering it in depth. At present, the WP:VG/SE pulls up a PCGamer announcement, a GameStar early access announcement, a Gamestar beta announcement, Gamestar announcement, Bluesnews announcement. None of this is WP:SIGCOV, so the article should be deleted per the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move to draftspace as WP:TOOSOON. I'd suggest redirecting to the dev article, but that's also at AfD. --TL22 (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to move to draftspace per Ferret's vote below. --TL22 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 11,553 viewers watching 100s of streamers streaming this game right now on Twitch. That is a wide enough release to not be too soon. We can always delete it later, if this quite huge audience (for Twitch) turns out to be a complete aberration. Thue (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Twitch is not a reliable source for the design and critical reception of the game. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can see actual gameplay. Which is obvious enough for a basic understanding of the game design, for a basic article. For critical reception, I don't see how that is required for a basic article. Thue (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actual development and design information, and reception, are what establish notability for a video game. --Izno (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, plenty of development and design information is available just by looking at the published gameplay. And view numbers is part of reception. Also I don't accept that only articles establish notability for a video game. Thue (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the game in depth? (For this domain and a game which is not in the mainstream, that's basically articles.) If not, the article misses our bar for notability. Popularity on a streaming website is not a secondary source and inference of development and design from gameplay is original research, which is verboten. I have provided what I believe to be actual sourcing, which is weak, at-best. Do you have anything to show? --Izno (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As WP:TOOSOON per nom. Popularity =/= notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify There seems to be some new coverage since this AFD opened. RockPaperShotgun and GameRevolution both covered it in the last two days, BluesNews has covered it again when Early Access began, as well as several other sites. With TOOSOON being quoted, draftification would be better than delete, as TOOSOON indicates a general expectation that it will become notable if it isn't yet. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or alt. user draft. Definiantly way too early with only one reference. One of the extra sources from above states the game is in an initial early access state with further developement due in the Spring of 2018. Please note: So there is no confusion; the article is not ready for coverage yet and my alternative to delete, of placing in draft-space, can in no way be construed as to mean "keep" as an article. Otr500 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace per WP:TOOSOON. Multiple sources for the coverage of the game haven't been provided. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2017 (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.