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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1100AD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Seemingly non-notable online content that has no independent reliable sources. I made a quick search for any third-party coverage and couldn't find any. I don't believe this meets notability criteria. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Shirik. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources, as is, not from amber games? Why is that even... Know what, I'll try and find something. -Feildmaster (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CHANCE. The article was created just one week ago. YardsGreen (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but it was already deleted once before. Not only that, I tried to do research to fill it up with references conveying its notability. I can't find any. No amount of time can fix that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I will discuss with the developers, I'm sure if anyone has sources, they will (or should). Also: Wikipedia's explanation pages need explanation pages. I can't even tell what a "valid source" is according to the pages (rather, i didn't take much time to read the bottom. The top confused me so i just looked for sources on other pages) . -Feildmaster (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You may find it useful to check out WP:SOURCES and WP:QS. YardsGreen (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was not aware that the article had been previously deleted. Do you happen to have a link to the previous AfD? About reliable sources, while I don't see any with a very quick search, Feildmaster seems to know more about the topic and is willing to try and find some. I'm willing to keep the article for now, and give Feildmaster and other possible editors a chance prove notability, depending on the previous AfD. YardsGreen (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It was not a discussion; it was deleted under A7, see here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 1100. 1100AD is a plausible search term and there are no circumstances in which it would be appropriate to make it a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirects are cheap, but I see no reason to redirect 1100AD when no other years are redirected similarly. 2011AD, 1980AD, and 1908AD are all redlinks, and so they should be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not exactly hard to fix, and AfD generally disregards "other stuff exists". Or in this case, "other stuff doesn't exist."—S Marshall T/C 19:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—Much as I would think there should be a place for articles like this in Wikipedia, I just don't see this satisfying the notability requirements. I can't find a single suitably-reliable independent reference for this game. Sorry, I can't support this.—RJH (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References: I will agree there are not that many references, but I have found a few. By checking Wikipedia's rules however, I can't tell what all are "valid reliable sources."

• Interview with developers
• A Game review
• Local Latvian Review (More so of the developers)
• Nomination for Favorite strategy game 2010 (Ranked #1 (2010,All Time)) , Most Popular game 2010 (Ranked #1 (2010)), Ranked #4 (All time)) (browser game rankings)
• Game reviews (There's a lot... will not list them all)
  • Browsergamez.com
  • osg1.com (They give a negative input)
  • bbgsite.com
  • buzzle.com

-Feildmaster (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on References The references given certainly seem to be independent. Whether they're reliable under policy is less clear. I'm not sure whether game reviews should qualify as reliable or not. Note that under WP:RSEX, assuming the appropriate category would be "popular culture", the standard for reliable sources is more relaxed than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Given that one of the sources is negative, I think they probably count as reliable. Does anyone know a more specific reference to games or game reviews in Wikipedia policy? YardsGreen (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its simply advertising, check out here http://www.1100ad.com/forumviewthread.php?id=19782 178.27.64.2 (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And who wouldn't want their game posted on wikipedia? Getting onto wiki is a notable thing, the player reward is simply a boost to try and get the page made. -Feildmaster (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. To summarize for those who don't want to follow the link, the site is hosting a contest where in-game rewards will be given to the main editors of the game's Wikipedia page. This could be a problem through WP:SOAP, specifically points four and five. Although this may not be the most WP:NPOV way to write a better article, I personally don't think it would be reason to necessarily delete a page, provided that the article is kept neutral. YardsGreen (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep sources provided appear to be independent and reliable, but I don't know the area well enough to know. Hobit (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Weak Keep - Browsergamez and BBGsite seem to be the only sites that aren't simple wordpress blogs hiding under a fancy design. I can't find much on these sites, so they may prove unreliable as well. --Teancum (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Browsergamez and BBGsite are the only non-wordpress blogs, but BBGsite is considered unreliable as a source, leaving only Browsergamez, which is also somewhat questionable - I don't know that it necessarily isn't reliable, but there's nothing on the site that lends immediate hope that it is, either. --Teancum (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Wordpress is simply a CMS choice, and is independent of the reliability of the source. Many unreliable sources use Wordpress, but many reliable sources also use Wordpress. For example, CNN's Larry King, Anderson Cooper and Dr. Gupta all use Wordpress, but are considered reliable sources under WP:NEWSBLOG. Consensus may ultimately be that the listed sources for 1100AD are not reliable, but that consensus should be reached independent of the CMS that the sources choose to use. YardsGreen (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that - perhaps I should have been more clear. I realize the format of the HTML does not a reliable site make. It's just a choice of word that we sometimes use for unreliable blogs. --Teancum (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2011 (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.