Call of Duty Wiki:Articles for Deletion

Articles for Deletion is where anyone can nominate an article to be deleted for whatever reason, and everyone decides if it should. To bring the article up for deletion, add "" to the top of the respective article, and make a subsection on this page about it.

If the article qualifies for speedy deletion (see criteria for speedy deletion), use "" instead, and don't make a subsection here. An administrator will find it and take care of it.

First-Person Shooter
This is just like putting an article say what a video game is.

Call of Duty 3 multiplayer classes
Support as nominator I think there rely is no point in this article i have made a page for each of the classes and a template. Klemenkin 11:49, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Comment of some sort - Well I think it would be better to merge it, butI have a way to fix it up if we dicide to keep it. Why don't we actually WRITE something on it?? Theres not a WORD there!!! So, in the time being, how about we make some words!?

Comment Umm did you wipe the page? Please don't wipe pages, send 'em here...and where are these pages? There's not much point them if you can't find them, haha :) Demon Magnetism talk 00:27, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a list of classes in CoD 3 that without it people may be confused. So I think it's important, but maybe it should be reorganised into Category style article.

5.7x28mm
Reason- No point. This article tells us nothing except what ammunition the P90 uses. In my opinion, this article is actually spam.

Callofduty4 |  What you after? 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose While it doesn't tell us anything more than what ammo the P90 uses, deleting it will do little good. If it is deleted, somebody will remake it with the same amount of minimal detail. We should keep it and let users slowly expand on it. Darkman 4 13:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It may be really short now, but many articles start out that way. Just wait for someone to come along and add more content to it. 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It has been six months six the AfD and no new content has been added. As the ammunition type is not specified in the game, would this fail the COD:G criteria? It seems a bit excessive to create articles on ammunition when they are not specifically referred to in game, in addition to the game providing no information about them. --Scottie theNerd 13:27, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Then we would have to create a page for every ammo type for every weapon in every game (Unless of course the weapon or ammo type is repeated.) Jdcoolha 13:59, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty Wiki: Blocking Policy
This page is not remotely accurate in regards to our blocking policy. Besides, I feel that having a strict policy in regards to blocking will handicap the admin's ability to effectively deal with vandals and the like.

Support as nominator. Darkman 4 19:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support --Cpl. Callofduty4 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Opposed Its not like its followed anyway. Looking back at how blocks are dealed with on this wiki since I wrote that more than a year ago blocks are stricter than what the policy dictates, not the other way around. Saying that you guys should re do it, not delete it, so admins have a policy to follow, not do whatever the hell they feel like to win an argument against a non authority, which Ive seen done several times, with Admins not acting like admins but acting like children when they block

Support - this was never approved by the community but was instead instituted by another user as their own personal opinion. Most admins prefer to block on a case by case basis-- 19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It was actully, you me and Chia decided we needed one and I wrote the basis and you guys were spouse to revise it as time went on. Chia approved it, and it was on a working basis, you were spouse to be re working it. But Ofc this never happened. It was after we got complaints that people were getting blocked because their opinions were not shared and it was considered vandalism when it wasnt. Its completley untrue to say it wasnt approved because it was. And you know it was too. Blociking on a case by case basis is a flawed policy, as admins don't always use good judgement and in the heat of the moment and block when there was no clear reason to block. And this wiki hasn't shown that Admins can block with good judgement. Blocks on this wiki make new users feel uncomfortable, that they cant say what they think should be included because a person with power doesnt agree. Thats the sad truth, and a blocking policy will keep admins in check to prevent new users from being alienated.


 * I love I've still got a bit of influence left. Bigm wont reply because he didnt know I was going to come back and show that you were one of the people who thought we needed one. And than when I wrote it instead of you, you freaked. You tried to get it deleated but I come back and completly stop it. I love to still have influence. And try to follow what you said in the first place not change it a year later. Afk for awhile again.

Support - It's about time this got wrapped up. Blocks should be case-by-case. 14:58, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Support - ^ Agreed, people should be Blocked/Suspended case by-case. Braden 0.0 12:08 January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Same as above. Smuff 21:30, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Question/Support - He has nothing to do with Call of Duty, and should I erase that his gun is a Walter?

Erwin Rommel
Doesn't ever appear in the Call of Duty series, he's not even ever really "experienced". For this same reason, I think Hitler's page should go too, but let's see what everyone thinks.

Support - as nominator. Icepacks 02:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Support - yeah, at least Hitler gets his own page because...he's Hitler, and what he did...but Rommel? That baby gets NOTH-ING. 17:38, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Pointless 19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - COD:G. Are you guys forgetting the point of this whole project? We are to cover every single bit of the series. Rommel has a level named after him, and he is mentioned by multiple characters. What more would you want? 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - Yeah, Chia does have a point there, with the Granularity policy. 08:24, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Rommel was an important figure in WWII and led the Afrika Korps there to secure oil fields there to support tank divisions. If it wern't for Rommel, the Germans would have little presence there and the British wouldn't be fighting them in Africa. If there was no battle in Africa during WWII, IW wouldn't have added it to their game. Green Wolf 17:36, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I disagree with COD:G in this case. He is a historical figure that has no bearing on the COD universe. Was he important to WW2? Yes. Is he important to COD? No. CODWiki is not Wikipedia -- it doesn't have to provide a historical context for every single historical figure when better sources are readily available -- and in better depth and detail. We end up lifting most of our historical text from Wikipedia anyway. --Scottie theNerd 00:51, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's silly to put this article in, considering the fact he is not seen or even talked about. I know this may have something to do with D-Day. Also, because of the COD:G we actually have to put up with articles like this. Smuff 10:23, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sergeant Hawkins talks about him before he, Denley and Roger get ambushed in Kasserine. 03:43, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment There is a Wikipedia page in Erwin Rommel with a lot more information. Delete this page and link to that? Jdcoolha 14:04, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Question/Support - Should I erase his gun? It says he uses a Walter. Also, this has nothing to do with Call of Duty.

George S. Patton
He is not an in-game character and is only mentioned once in the entire series.

Oppose - Per reasoning with Rommel. We cover Call of Duty. He is in the Call of Duty universe. He is mentioned. COD:G. 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Cook (Call of Duty 4)
Pvt. Cook is an un-confirmed glitch in Call of Duty 4. The glitch should at least be officially confirmed if this article is to stay.

Support - Something like this needs confirmation for documentation. The Holy gun has a source to verify its existance. This... does not. 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Support - ...What Chia said. 08:22, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - There is proof no? There are tons of videos of it on youtube, and Cook's page does have a link to one of them. --Ant423 22:52, January 5, 2010 (UTC)Ant423


 * Comment - The video you're reffering to is actually of a hacked/modded version of the game. That's why Gaz still dies, and why the Ultranationalists seem to ignore Cook while he's attacking them.Gmanington MCCCXLII 18:51, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Chiafriend12.

Oppose - it has happened to me before, you just have to bust your ass to keep him alive. If I can do it again I WILL make a YouTube video with my user name in the description. 🇨🇩 04:14, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Although Cook may be Non-canon, that does not make him a glitch. If he is a glitch, then why is it always Cook, not some other random generated soldier?

Oppose- It is a nice little bit of side story. This and other articles give the wiki flavour. Bearded Hoplite 03:50, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - For all the reasons stated above. It's true that if it was a glitch, it should be a randomly generated solder. 7th Body 16:31, February 13, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Reznov's Machete
Unnecessary page, it's simply a weapon that only sees use in 2 places. Not needed. Also, it's not a very well written page. 17:41, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. 17:41, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support though if the content of the page is anything of value, merge to Sgt. Resnov.

Comment Maybe this page and Roebuck's machete can be merged under a single artcle called machete?? Ant423 03:45, February 2, 2010 (UTC)Ant423

Support - Can't this just be merged with Resnov? Smuff 01:17, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Slayback (Modern Warfare 2)
Tottaly usless. Just about a guy eating while watching two soldiers. Waste of bandwith. - SkierPS3

Suppot- He's an incredibly minor character, we dont need a whole article on him. Corporal Morgan, RRoS 11:58, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Umm, does he fit either of these? If so, then Oppose. Demon Magnetism talk 16:32, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - To Demon, he is the same everytime but he is never mentioned ever in any dialogue, so he doesn't meet the requirments. - SkierPS3

Comment - He only has to fit one...at least, that was my knowledge of the situation. The granularity policy applies if one fits...Demon Magnetism talk 21:48, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment oops I thought it was both, but still: the only reason anything was written about him was because he MIGHT be a reference. But he doesn't do anything.

Killed in Action
An article about people getting killed isn't specific nor unique to Call of Duty. At the moment it's a copy of the Wikipedia article with a list of main characters who have died. Considering thousands of characters are KIA, it's hardly notable to create an article based on the KIA classification. --Scottie theNerd 00:58, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing Scottie Supports as nominator, and I support as the article is bad and it doesn't really deserve an article. 01:30, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - According to COD:G, everything gets covered, so Im gonna have to oppose. Also, I do think it deserves an article, for there are many references to Call of Duty, and it is a common thing in-game. 7th Body 23:19, February 12, 2010 (UTC)7th Body
 * The fundamental flaw in COD:G is that it has to be in the game. The KIA classification is not in the game per se. Players getting killed is simply that -- getting killed. It does not lend itself an article about a particularly military classification of casualties. If we keep this, we'll need to create articles for WIA, and hell, "casualty" in general, since there are hundreds of thousands of them. --Scottie theNerd 03:13, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with 7th Body with this article. COD:G says anything in game gets covered. KIAs are in MW2 and maybe other games. So what if it's minor, an article's an article no matter what you guys say. Roachrunner2010 2/14/10 21:33.
 * But again, many things appear in the game that aren't explicitly highlighted. There are thousands of casualties in the COD series, just as there are many characters who are probably African-American, Catholic and have moustaches. KIA isn't "in" COD; it's a real-life classification that has been applied to COD to describe the deaths of certain characters, which the article primarily is not about. --Scottie theNerd 06:33, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Host Ended Game
I don't think this article is relevant at all and it doesn't really contain any helpful information. And the video in the article doesn't even work. Ant423 04:15, January 23, 2010 (UTC)Ant423

Game System articles
This section is in regard to all the platform articles on CoDwiki, including Nintendo Wii, PlayStation Portable and Personal Computer. The articles do not meet inclusion criteria in the spirit of COD:G, as they are not directly or indirectly related to the games. The info on the platforms have nothing to do with the game, and the info on the games have nothing to do with the console. At best, it's a direct rip from Wikipedia that shouldn't be here. --Scottie theNerd 00:44, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't have a problem with them. 10:40, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify why you don't have a problem? I don't believe articles should be kept or deleted on the basis that certain people don't have problems with them. --Scottie theNerd 10:51, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I do not have a problem as they are relevant to the series, as without them there'd be noting to play CoD on, right? They're well written and perfectly fine. 13:38, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Without electricity, I couldn't play COD either. We come across the Granularity Conundrum again. --Scottie theNerd 06:01, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe they are relevant. Ant423 01:29, February 10, 2010 (UTC)Ant423
 * So is the manufacturer of my video card. How is this relevant and other technical components not? --Scottie theNerd 06:19, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Game developers like Infinity Ward, Spark Unlimited and Treyarch all have articles and though they are involved with the production of the games, they are not a part of the games' universes. Articles involving developers, publishers (Like Activision) and game systems provide real life/background information on the content that part of the universe. Ant423 14:38, February 10, 2010 (UTC)Ant423
 * I can understand articles for developers -- they are directly involved with the game and are undoubtedly relevant. However, in order to refine the COD:G problem, we need to start drawing lines. Is the console that essential to the game? Providing real-life background is not the focus of the wiki, as we have moved towards more game-related information and less background on real-life equivalents, so does providing information on a console really what readers want on CoDwiki? We have to keep in mind that eventually we want all articles to be moved from stub status, but we cannot do that with consoles without copying Wikipedia.
 * Essentially, I'm declaring the following points based on our discussion:
 * Development companies are fine based on the fact that they made the games, and are therefore directly linked to the games.
 * The platforms on which the games appear on do not need articles as it is irrelevant as to which console the game is on. The exception would be the Wii games, but such differences are already noted in their respective game articles.
 * My reasoning for the latter is that the platform, as well as the company that makes the platforms (e.g. Sony, Microsoft, etc.) have as much to do with the game as the vendor that sells it (e.g. EB Games, Walmart, etc.). --Scottie theNerd 05:34, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I have no problem with it, and I think it's pretty relevant. 7th Body 23:21, February 12, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Cherubini's
This is an extremly minor thing, but on the other hand the COD:G policy says we should include it.

Neutral - As nominator. 13:35, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Far too many restaurants in MW2 to make articles for each one. If this one stays, then we need articles on Burger Town, Nate's, etc. Perhaps we should make an article called "restaurants" or somethingAnt423 14:17, February 3, 2010 (UTC)Ant423

Comment - Technically, an article on each restaurant is allowed under COD:G. I'm withholding my vote, as I am more interesting in amending COD:G than deleting or creating articles based on varied interpretations. --Scottie theNerd 06:11, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

National Security Agency
I don't feel this article is necessary. The NSA appears exactly once in the entire series. No one in the games is confirmed, or even believed to be, in the NSA.

Support- As nominator. Hk37 03:08, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Well I suppose it'll be almost like the CIA, but albeit a bit less mentioned :/ --Novangel 03:04, February 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, but at least two characters are confirmed to be in the CIA. There are no characters in the NSA in MW2. Hk37 03:08, February 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually there's only one but yeah...I suppose it's not absolutely necessary.

Comment - Under current interpretation of COD:G, if it appears once, it deserves its own article. --Scottie theNerd 07:18, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sex Dolls
A little argument has sprung up about this article. Some see it as just an irrelevant piece of scenery, others see it as deserving under COD:G. I'll let the community decide. 21:55, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It is never mentioned and as you said it is only a bit of scenery. We don't have articles on trees, bushes or walls do we? 22:23, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I suppose this is my argument. I guess it was wrong of me to post up the delete tag without conferring, since COD:G does make it confusing. But I'll say what I said before. It's interactive scenery. We don't have articles on glass that can be broken or the boxes on Highrise that can be knifed, revealing snacks. The fact that we just deleted George Washington's page because he only appeared in a picture is all the more reason to get rid of this page. Icepacks 23:25, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that COD:G says nothing about scenery. Icepacks 01:40, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Because I own one that I dress up and put in my back seat when I go to parties; sex dolls are people, too. -- Echo Four Delta 03:41, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Oops, that was a few days ago, and I think I was drunk when I made that edit, my bad guys, I fully support a campaign against sex doll articles on the CoD Wiki. -- Echo Four Delta 01:39, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - No offense, but I'm not sure I understand that reasoning.. Icepacks 11:56, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I really don't care any more but I just thought it was a good page because it was an easter egg. If you look around there's a lot of easter eggs on this wiki. That's all I have to say but I don't care if it is deleted. -- Batman Rider 04:07, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Support - I erased a part that said "They are in a stance of sex" mainly because it is completely unnecessary, and i beg to differ. Also, i don''t think this should be on this wikia, but COD:G makes it....... odd and confusing. 7th Body 03:46, February 9, 2010 (UTC)7th Body''

Support - COD:G needs a major rewrite. I dont think this is what the policy meant. Slowrider7 00:09, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support I don't think COD:G had every object in the environment in mind. Otherwise we'd just have a bunch of stupid and useless articles. I support stuff that actually matters following COD:G, but this is pretty ridiculous--WouldYouKindly 00:22, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we do currently have a lot of useless and barely-relevant articles that have to be kept under COD:G. --Scottie theNerd 01:30, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity
Before you come to my house with pitchforks and torches, let me explain why. Look at the above articles. Many are articles which are covered by a very vague article which we have to put up with, which in turn allows these articiles to exist while we argue over them simply because we cant put the speedy delete on it. I think it either needs to be made redundant or rewritten with immediate effect.

Support as nominator - It's too vague and deletion will make it alot easier to do editing jobs. Smuff 21:57, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It needs a rewrite; deleting it will not accomplish anything. 22:02, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bovell. Doc.Richtofen 22:10, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bovell too. Slowrider7 22:52, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bovell three.--WouldYouKindly 00:07, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Change of vote: Oppose - You're right, Per Bovell four, when I posted this I really just wanted to get something done to it. Smuff 00:18, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I've been in discussion with various people about COD:G and am in the process of offering a draft proposal in the War Room. As the others have stated, the policy needs a re-write, not a deletion. I think we can consider this AfD closed. --Scottie theNerd 06:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Smuff, you can post it in the Improvement Drive, or like Scottie said, the War Room. Either way, deleting it wont help. People will make pages about the stickers on the Humvees and stuff. Slowrider7 08:44, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically it is a War Room-only discussion, as the Improvement Drive page is meant for articles. Policy pages aren't articles. --Scottie theNerd 09:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Ok, thanks for the help, and the editing tips, if I ever nominate something again I'll know what to look for! Smuff 12:06, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ammo Crate (Care Package)
No need, all about Ammo Crates are in Care Package article. Zaqq 19:07, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It is a useless article, but the Ammo Drop has gained its own special place in most players heart. I know that sounds cheesy, but the Ammo Drop is by far the most socially popular drop you can get. Slowrider7 20:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

All Hardcore gamemode articles
These should be replaced with one Hardcore article. I feel very strongly about this. Imrlybord7 20:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator. Imrlybord7 20:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Radiation Zones
Very minor thing, radiation zones make only five major appearances - twice in Call of Duty 4, three times in Modern Warfare 2. While COD:G says we should keep it, it's still a very minor article. Sgt. S.S. 21:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nminator. Sgt. S.S. 21:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)