Talk:Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy

Why is this article needed? I propose a rapid deletion.

First of all, I thank you in the name of my long deceased relative that died in the invasion of Normandy for Australia's part in that struggle. But really, where will this process end if we allow articles to be created about every possible group involved in the invasion to be created? I could easily dream up a long string of such titles, but I fear it would appear an insult to those who served and most especially those who died. This article needs to be deleted as soon as possible. Zedshort (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

With all respect, I think you've got high hopes if you believe an article that's been considered as meeting WP notability guidelines every step of the way, from creation to Featured status, is going to be deleted out of hand. The fact that the article is meticulously referenced, and draws upon material dealing specifically with the subject of Australia's contribution to the campaign, is testament to that. WP is a volunteer project, and people are at liberty to write about whatever subjects they wish to, so long as they meet notability criteria and WP's other requirements of neutrality, referencing, style, etc. I'm sorry if it pains you that we "allow" such articles to be created, but that's the nature of the project, and the fact that this article exists in no way stops others (like yourself) adding or improving articles that they deem more important. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Z - if you can "easily dream up a long string of such titles..." and the topics have received "significant coverage in reliable sources" then they meet the notability requirement per WP:GNG so pls feel free to go ahead and write said articles (I for one am really looking forward to seeing what you come up with so pls don't delay). That said I would be surprised if they ever reached the standard of this one... Its clearly a high quality article on a notable subject of interest to many of our readers. Anotherclown (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that this article gives undue weight to the Australian contribution and that this is so extreme that it comes across as bias or promotion. While the fact that Australians fought at all in this battle on the other side of the world is creditable, their overall contribution was quite small compared to other Allied nations - see list of Allied forces in the Normandy Campaign in which there is no section for Australia. Canadians may feel particularly slighted by this as they were responsible for an entire beach landing, sent several divisions to fight in the campaign and so there are numerous books about the Canadian contribution such as Fields of Fire: The Canadians in Normandy. I don't agree that this article should be deleted but giving it such prominence seems insensitive. It's like the common complaint about Hollywood's treatment of WW2 - that it gives undue weight to American participation. The movie Objective, Burma! was banned in the UK for this reason and it's interesting to find that its star, Errol Flynn, was actually Australian. Anyway, props to the guys who put in the hard work on this article but you should have seen this fuss coming. Sorry if it spoils the glory of your FA day. Andrew (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Actually it doesn't spoil it at all -- plenty of Aussies love a good argument and, at the end of the day, the article's on the front page, isn't it? Seriously though, my earlier points stand. The article wouldn't even exist but for the sources discussing the subject in depth, and there's been plenty of opportunity to raise concerns of undue weight in reviews. The effort put into developing this article hasn't come at the expense of articles focussing on other country's contributions, which I really don't think are slighted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Andrew - how can an article called "Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy" give "undue weight" to the Australian contribution? Its the very topic of the article. I cannot follow this logic. I see no promotion I see an article on a notable aspect of the campaign. If all this information was included in the main article on the Battle of Normandy then it would of course be undue weight, but it hasn't. Regardless, the point Ian makes seems to be the heart of the matter. It only exists because there are sources to allow it to be developed to the detail that it has. Anyway surely we all have been things to discuss than an FA article? There are heaps of poorly covered topics that could be improved which would surely be a much better application of everyones time and energy. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• BTW if Canadians feel slighted perhaps one of them might consider writing a similar article focusing on their involvement? No doubt there are considerable sources available so this too would be a notable subject (I personally think this would be an excellent addition to the encyclopedia so I hope someone does). It doesn't seem to be an argument to not cover other nation's involvement in detail though. Anotherclown (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• WP:NOTFINISHED seems the short version of a suitable response here: Wikipedia is a work in progress, and the absence of an article on a viable topic simply means that no-one has written it yet. I sure hope someone writes articles about other national contributions to this battle, and agree that the Canadian contrition would be a particularly fascinating topic (from scouting out sources earlier in the year, an article on New Zealand's contribution would also be viable: about 3,000 Kiwis also took part in D-Day). I'm Australian and wrote most of this article as part of researching a trip to Normandy, and it notes repeatedly that that the Australian contribution was only a small part of the overall effort. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602004448/http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/Publications/Details/262/13-Australian-Air-Contribution-to-D-Day-Operations.aspx to http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/publications/Details/262/13-Australian-Air-Contribution-to-D-Day-Operations.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229003706/http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/OAWG/about_OAWG/Documents/P01114%20OAWG%20London%20Memorial%20brochure.pdf to http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/OAWG/about_OAWG/Documents/P01114%20OAWG%20London%20Memorial%20brochure.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120926201540/http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/UK1414 to http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/UK1414

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)