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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era[edit]

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

All the references come from the official web site of from discussions at internet forums. There is no mention in independent secondary sources to confirm notability. Remember that this is not an official expansion of the famed Age of Empires game, but a mod made by random users in the internet, so existence, forums and an official site are not enough to confirm notability. Cambalachero (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article uses the unfree file File:The Napoleonic Era.png, which is not used at other articles Cambalachero (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the first claim is complete nonsense. Out of 9 sources, there are only two forum threads (5th and 6th). All the other pages link to download pages or detailed information about the mod. Also there ARE independent secondary sources mentioned. The only primary source is ne.elpea.net, as you can see at the end of the page. All the other pages are independent. To be exact I count 7 sources not linking to the primary source. Also I don't quite get the hang of your last sentence, saying that existence, forums and official site are not enough to confirm notability. There are downloadable products offered on different sites, references and a notable fan scene on other Age Of Empires sites, references on Youtube.com and much more. I wonder what else would it take? Tilanus (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*:Weak Keep (If more sources are found) - Although I'd hardly call Youtube a primary source, Tilanus, I do agree that the page is already well written and if we can find more independent sources, I think it should stay. Most of the sources on the page now are created by the makers of the mod themselves. Skullbird11 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC) [Retracted, see below]. Skullbird11 (talk)[reply]

The point of mentioning youtube videos was to emphasize the notability and relevance of the article's subject - which was questioned by Cambalachero - not to call them primary sources. In fact, Youtube is a secondary source and as far as I have understood the source policy on Wikipedia (and there is way too much to read in this letter jungle), secondary sources are somehow considered to be the best. Just having a look on google with the given keywords will bring up plenty of pages, whose huge amount underlines the notability again and again. Tilanus (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: References 2, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are all from the official site. References 1 and 3 are mere press releases, and do not denote notability. References 4 and 6 are internet forums. The youtube videos are just recorded gameplay. It all fails the 4º item of the General notability guideline, none of them is independent from the subject. Cambalachero (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what do you expect. Napoleonic Era is one of the most anticipated mods for the game and you just have nothing better to do than questioning its notability. I really really dislike that nitpicking on wikipedia. It's just anything but user-friendly.
6 is the official website of Ensemble Studios, so it's not "just an internet forum", same counts for 6, it's a real community that covers many aspects, the forum is just an additional platform to the site's contents. But in spite of that fact, what's the matter with "just being an internet forum"? These are valid secondary sources if the threads have not been started by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. Each time an independent fan speaks about a product, the product he raises the notability of this product for the public. Forum threads and youtube videos don't do anything else than this! They confirm the product's existence, prove its relevance and increase the notability. Otherwise there'd be no reason for these things to exist. Comments don't show up if there is nothing to comment, right?

Except the references to the mod's website and reference 1, no one from the team was involved in making any of the other posts, articles or other submissions. They're independent of the subject and let me even repeat this one: [...] the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. Neither forum threads nor youtube videos do fit into this description.

The links to the mod's page are only there to prove that the content of the wikipedia article is not made up. If Mercedes would come up with a new car and write something about the technical details, I guess linking to the Mercedes page would be accepted? Just wondering.

Last question: Why are you trying so hard to destroy this article? Tilanus (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest reading Wikipedia's notability policy (WP:N), as this will help elucidate an essential policy of Wikipedia. In general, forum posts are not reliable sources (WP:RS), and a forum post does not become reliable merely because it is posted on a discussion forum, open to the public, on an official website. There is a difference between static webpages and official blogs, which are under the editorial control of the site, and forum posts which are not editorially controlled by the site.

With regard to your Mercedes scenario, once notability of the subject is established by third-party, independent, reliable sources, primary sources (such as an official publication technical details) are definitely appropriate as sources. However, an article that has no third-party, independent, reliable sources fails notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still shaking my head, but, whatever, it seems I really have to suit these over-rationalized laws. Laws, because "guidelines" would be an understatement regarding the practised rigidity. Wikipedia really has become its own science. I'm sorry for not speaking wikipedianish, I really just look for a way to keep this article alive as I'm convinced that it has a right to exist here. Tilanus (talk) 02:04, 30 November 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) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With apologies to Tilanus, Cambalachero's analysis of the references to show that the article appears to fail notability is spot-on. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject cannot be established, then an article has no place on wikipedia. Indrian (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a very impressive mod, something I say as a fan of the Age of Empires series (except Online) and as someone who's played the mod. And I found out about it through Wikipedia. I'd love to see it stay. However... there are zero reliable sources that have mentioned it. I've tried searching for you as I'd like to keep the article personally. However, without reliable sources, the game is not notable, and the article must be eliminated in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. I'm sorry, that's just the way things are. By the way, just because it exists doesn't mean it gets an article, nor does it inherit fame from Age of Empires. Even if there are lots of sources, if none are independent of the subject, it doesn't matter much. Emmy Altava 04:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And speaking of independence... it seems that you're affiliated with the game. How curious. Emmy Altava 04:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - [Aaaand just leaving this here. Make of it what you will.] Emmy Altava 06:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uhm, I said I'm owner of these files, so it's pretty obvious I'm involved, right? I'm sorry for not feeling "discovered". I don't even see what's wrong with these links. Every project has a promotion section, the difference is just that this one is public and that fans help us. I think everyone who wrote on this article has been trying to stay as unbiased as possible, trying to look for links that confirm the asserted pieces of information. Considering the dimension of the mod, we thought there should be enough good reasons to be and stay in the Wikipedia, but obviously people here prefer stones over medicine. Tilanus (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What's obvious is that wikipedia has been an excellent source of publicity for your mod and you want to keep it that way. I am sure your product is shaping up to be a great mod and am not knocking all your hard work, but you do not have a right to free advertising on this site. If reliable third-party sources cover your work in the future, then maybe your mod will deserve a page here, but right now it is just not ready for prime time so to speak. Indrian (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources, fails to establish notability, seems to have some sort of WP:COI as well now... Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A google search of "Age of Empires III: The Napoleonic Era" at IGN, GameSpot, GameSpy, GameInformer, NextGen, 1UP, GameDaily, GamesRadar, and Eurogamer turned up nothing. Plenty without the quotes, but I'm sure most of those are for AoE3. Sorry, but I don't believe that this meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - On said forum, there's been a request for a list of sources considered 'reliable'. Here's a good place to start: WP:VG/S 98.194.143.132 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Go ahead. If you find and include reliable sources independent of the subject, the deletion may be reconsidered. Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the tips, Guyinblack25. I'm still looking for better sources, the article however, is a lil outdated and seeing the votes it's unlikely that it will be kept. So it's most probably gonna be restarted by anyone in the future.
    
    I need to object to one statement though: Napoleonic Era can be found through IGN and Gamespy. The files and articles have not directly been hosted or published on the main page, but on affiliate sites of them.
    For example, if you press "Mods" in the menu on the Gamespy page, you'll be directed to FilePlanet.com, which is also powered by IGN. This site then again contains mod-related files, even Napoleonic Era.
    
    Also, you can read in the article that the mod has once been rewarded by Gamespy for a picture. The URL ( which starts with http://planetageofempires.gamespy.com ) and even the favicon of that linked page reveal that it belongs to Gamespy. The IGN page, however, doesn't even report about mods, but it has affilitates that do. It's just that little point, I know it won't change that much for you.
    It's impossible to fulfill the wiki guidelines if sites that would count as valid sources in the gaming area do not host or report mods in the first, but only in the second or third instance. That's just my point. The mod is just not as irrelevant and unknown as you guys believe it is. Tilanus (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After looking at the evidence before me, I change my consensus to delete. Skullbird11 (talk) 10:52, 1 December 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.