Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 D-Day : Operation Overlord


 * 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. - PeaceNT (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

1944 D-Day : Operation Overlord

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously deleted via AFD at Articles for deletion/1944 D-Day Operation Overlord (videogame) in March 2007 per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N. I found no independent coverage from reliable sources, and game is still not even scheduled for release, so it appears to fail again on the same counts. Note that earlier versions of this incarnation of the article actually had more content; the author reduced it to its current state shortly after I removed an interwiki link xe had added to it at Battle of Normandy. Maralia (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete They could at least have the decency to write an article Rotovia (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems no more notable now than at the time of the last AfD. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure advertising and just links. Jmlk  1  7  08:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Needs an article to go with the links. -Legotech (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable hits in Gamespot, Neoseeker, IgN, game rankings or rotten tomatoes-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete by CSD A1 as providing "little or no context to the reader". &mdash; alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 11:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed my vote because the article has been changed, based on what Uncle G has said below. &mdash; alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per CSD A1. Harland1 (t/c) 12:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete -- no content --T-rex 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, out of nine comments here, precisely three people actually read the last sentence of the nomination or bothered to look at the article history. Disturbing. Maralia (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to revert, there is no reason to waste any of our time here to do so, simply revert the page blanking and let us all get on with our lives. You showed us instead a page with one line and four external links, and that get speedy deleted anyday... --T-rex 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You !voted 'speedy delete - no content' based purely on the reduced state of the article. Extensive discussion on this page&mdash;starting, oddly enough, in my nomination&mdash;details why speedy is not appropriate, and that the issue is notability and crystal ballery. If you can't be bothered to read the full nom, look at the article history when it's been pointed out as relevant, or read any of the deletion discussion, you're wasting my time. Maralia (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per last three people. Absolutely no content aside from four links. Not even a sentence. Nothing. Only "Visit the Website" and four links to different pages on said website. Doc Strange (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I must repeat: please see the article history before jumping on the CSD A1 bandwagon. Note that I am the nominator, and I feel it should be deleted, but please make an effort to !vote based on the proper criteria. Maralia (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the article fulfills CSD A1 - would somebody like to try and argue with the fact that it's a very short article with no context? If the article is edited (to include the original text, while keeping the AfD template) I'll more than happily change my vote. Perhaps this AfD raises something I'm unaware of - is there a reason it doesn't fulfill CSD A1, based on the history? &mdash; alex.muller (talkpage • contribs) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD policy asks administrators to check the page history to see if a previous version is salvageable rather than delete the article at the administrators discretion. tgheretford (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence my cough. I am an administrator, and I certainly wouldn't speedily delete this article for having no context when there is a version in the history that has context.  That's the very reason that administrators are supposed to check article histories.  Without doing so, vandals could get articles deleted willy-nilly by just vandalizing them and them nominating them for speedy deletion. The only valid speedy deletion criterion here would be re-creation of previously discussed and deleted content.  I've had a look at .  It's not exactly the same article as this one, but all of the arguments from the prior AFD discussion, about documenting something that has yet to be shown to the world, appear still to apply from what this article says alone.  However, it has been almost seven months.  Sources may have appeared in the meantime.  All of the editors above asking for speedy deletion on invalid grounds haven't helped AFD one whit with the rationales that they gave; and if I were the administrator closing this discussion, I'd simply discount their rationales entirely.  They would actually help AFD by double-checking that it is still the case, since the last AFD discussion, that no independent sources exist.  Looking for sources onesself is what one is supposed to be doing at AFD, and one of the reasons that AFD involves more than 1 pair of eyes, as explained in the Guide to deletion.  I applaud Lenticel and Maralia for having done this.  Everyone else take note:  That is what you are supposed to be doing at AFD.  Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I reverted to the last salvageable revision and added the afd tag. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be at least a semi-notable game. I'm sure it will garner more attention as it comes closer to the release date. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is whether it has it already had any attention. What independent and reliable sources did you find when you looked to see whether the criteria in Notability were satisfied?  Notability is not subjective, and is not your personal opinion of whether something is notable or not.  By not looking for sources, and not demonstrating that they exist to support an article being written, per our content and deletion policies, you are not helping AFD any more than the editors calling for speedy deletion.  An argument to keep on invalid grounds is as useless to the closing administrator as an argument to delete on invalid grounds.  Please base your rationales on our Policies and guidelines.  Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Searching for the game's title and the developer's name (Frantic Games) produces just under 5k hits, the only half-promising ones I've seen are a short interview on a message board and this, which doesn't pass notability by any stretch. The game is still under development and, apparently, has increased in complexity considerably. On top of that, viewing a thread on the game's website reveals the lead programmer stating that they do not wish to have a WP article because interested parties who go over to the game's site are given no in-game shots or footage - no footage is being released until the devs are satisfied it reflects the finished game. Until these details are made available the secondary sources we need aren't going to appear. The article doesn't pass our guidelines, the developers don't want more disappointed potential players turning up and asking for materials which haven't been produced, WP readers don't need directing to things which don't yet tangibly exist, where's the positives? When the game is released, it may result in good sources, in which case we have the article back and readers get pointed to something which might interest them and is actually there to use. Someone another (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2008 (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.