Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cross of the Dutchman (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Triangle Studios. Davewild (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Cross of the Dutchman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:FUTURE, WP:ADVERT, WP:GNG or at best WP:NTEMP. This is an article about a now-six-year-old piece of "vaporware", that is, it's a promotional article for a video game that was never actually made. It was arguably not notable to begin with, and if it ever was, the notability was temporal and confined to 2009. The latest "no consensus" vote on a nominated deletion was in 2011, and at that point, the article was already a two-year-old WP:ADVERT for a game that showed no signs of arriving. It's now four years later, the game still doesn't exist, and so, it's time to delete this article until if/when the article's subject actually, you know, exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 May 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect to Triangle Studios as Dutch article also does —Мандичка YO 😜 11:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Page created and first comment added by me, by the way. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Page hasn't gotten a big upgrade in a while now, obviously not notable if it's not being updated. -- Anar  chyte   07:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Note that whether or not the article has been upgraded or updated does not correspond with the topic's potential notability or lack thereof. North America1000 00:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I see your point, but the nature of this seems like it would suggest at least a weak correspondence. I think you could find many good candidates for deletion on general notability grounds by trawling articles about promised video games that never arrived. I think this is just one example of that for the reasons detailed above. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll throw my vote to anyone who weighs in on either delete or speedy redirect to avoid stalemate. Both seem fine to me, although my preference at the moment is still for delete since the game just doesn't exist anywhere outside of obsolete or promotional sources. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Triangle Studios. If the subject is a valid search term, and it is, redirection to the dev article is always preferred to deletion. Redirects are cheap. Not sure how to work with these non-English sources, but all in all, there are no hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and the section can always spin out summary style. – czar   19:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect - changing my vote to avoid stalemate as described in my comment above. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2015 (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.