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, use "" instead, and don't make a subsection here. An administrator will find it and take care of it.

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)

Browning .30 cal
Support as nominator. This article already exists. It should be deleted, or merged with M1919 Callofduty4 |    What you after?  09:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support multiple pages for the same thing is messed up.   Akyoyo    Talk  22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

9x19mm
This has been overlooked for some time. There are two articles for the same thing. The other article is called 9x19 Parabellum.

Support as nominator

Support - Either delete because of dup or redirect. --I Ross I 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Multiple pages for the same thing is messed up.   Akyoyo    Talk  22:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Katushya rocket
There article already exists. It should be deleted, or merged with Katyusha rocket launcher.

Support as nominator

Support only referenced in one line in COD5.

Well, it was already merged, but I'd like to say that they also appear multiple times in the Finest Hour Russian campaign. So, they aren't only seen a few times in World at War. Anywho, even if they were only mentioned once or twice, we should still have an article on them. 22:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kiefer Sutherland
We don't need this article. There is a perfectly good article on him on wikipedia.

Support as nominator

Opposed, Famous actor voicing a role in a Call of Duty game, its fine

Oppose - He does the voice in CoD:WaW, and the article here is perfectly fine, no reason to delete. --I Ross I 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, my bad, the article is in pretty bad shape, but if it were fixed and some info added, I think it would be pretty good. --I Ross I 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support The article is in terrible shape, we could just link to Wikipedia, and we don't need an article on him in the first place.   Akyoyo    Talk  22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I would agree that the article should be deleted. It does not have enough info, to even really be classified as a stub. It has nothing on it. Attack Rhino 23:26, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support It's a dead article that shows no signs of getting any better. WouldYouKindly 02:01, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Support One of my favorite actors, but there's no need for an article on him, and the article is in terrible shape. 02:33, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Uh...why does this thing still exist? We brought this up how long ago? And everyone knows how badly the page sucks. Can someone get rid of it already?


 * Comment - right on that, getting an admin… Attack Rhino 08:03, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - this article is relevant to COD, it just needs some fixing up-- 12:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - (To me) there is nothing to fix up, as there is nothing on the page. It does not have anything in it, and I assume that it never really will. All it says is that Sutherland voices Roebuck, it would be better to just say that in Roebucks page, instead of wasting space and slowing down everything. Attack Rhino 22:33, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Category:Modern Warfare 2
Support: 1

Neutral/Pending: 0

Oppose: 0

This category and both of its subcategories (Modern Warfare 2 Characters and Modern Warfare 2 Weapons) are not used by any articles. They are redundant and break the scheme addressing all products by their full title, such as Category:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. FarmerBob12 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Support This category is useless and makes things confusing ElFuser 19:07, November 30, 2009 (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)

Edward (Doctor's assistant)
If Dr.Rictofen really is Edward I don't think we shold have this article.

Support as nominator. -- 1:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm surprised no one did that after the merge.   SgM.   Akyoyo    Talk

Mad Catz
I don't really understand why there is an article on this. This is more like an advertisement for Mad Catz. Just because they make accessories related to the game doesn't mean they deserve an article. --I Ross I 22:34, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support - As Nom, per reasons above. 22:34, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense, as per reasons above. --02:21, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Article is useless, almost no actual COD-related info on it, and what little there it is already on the MW2 page. WouldYouKindly 02:30, September 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think the atrocious grammar on the article (all two sentences of it) is another good reason to get rid of it ("a mice"? WTF?) WouldYouKindly 20:03, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Yeah, I don't see why we need this article. --CallofDuty4 16:49, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I can see the how this article might be good for describing the MW2 accessories made by them, but at this point its just useless. Darkman 4 20:30, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

World Timeline
This article is poorly formatted, is full of bad spelling and grammar, and for the most part already exists (in a much better form) on Call of Duty series timeline. What little separate information it does include can be merged onto this article.

Support - As nominator. 22:35, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support- It was already deleted once, I have no idea who remade it, but he didn't bother to improve it. WouldYouKindly 22:36, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Merge and redirect - Per above. 23:44, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Mi-12
I'll try to keep this short. The article in question is about a helicopter that isn't even in any of the COD games (it even says so in the article). I'm not even sure what it's doing here in the first place. Not to mention it's only three sentences long and has very little relevant information to the helicopter itself anyway.

Support - As nominator. WouldYouKindly 00:31, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

It qualifies for speedy deletion. I'll go ahead and delete it. 00:46, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Challenge Completion Guide: Tips & Strategies
Appears to be an orphan page, with little relevance.

Support - As nominator. Thanks, Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 19:30, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Karachi
Another orphan article I've encountered, I'm not sure of the relevance of this either. Apologies if you could easier speedy them as admins, I'm not too good with the speedy policy of this Wiki Thanks, Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 19:36, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a map that's been confirmed for Modern Warfare 2. It will of course be edited again with more information next week, so leave it be for now. 23:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Alright, cool, I was a little unsure whether it was correct, or something based on speculation, but it's confirmed, sorry for the nuisance. Thanks, Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 23:25, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

EMP Killstreak Modern Warfare 2
It's entirely from a 1st person view, all it does is describe a YouTube video, sharing their thoughts of speculation, it's titled wrong, poorly formatted, and generally doesn't make sense if you saw it / skimmed it / read it.

Support - as nominator. 05:54, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Support - my first reaction was: "what?" I think it sums up the fact that it is not needed, per what Aky said. Attack Rhino 08:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - ...Aky? I've never heard anyone call me that before... 04:18, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

How to Find the Best Sniper Spot and Use it to Your Advantage
This article's in terrible shape, it has terrible formatting and spelling/grammar/punctuation, and just does not seem like an appropriate article to begin with. Plus, look at the title. I think this page should be taken down, but of course that could just be my opinion.

Support - as nominator. 04:21, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - One more thing - it has millions of those RTE little nuisances in the text ( &nbsp ). 04:23, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I was just reading it and the AoD popped up when I refreshed the page. I agree, it is poorly written and formatted. Seems more fitted for someones's user page. Chief z 04:28, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It's a badly made page and therefore should be deleted.--Poketape 04:33, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Single Player levels
I have noticed two different duplicate Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 single player levels - S.S.D.D. vs. S.S.D.D. S.S.D.D. is the better of the two. And Team Player vs. Team Player (level). Those two are pretty much equal in quality. Just doing this to bring these to attention.

Support - Merge information and subsequently delete S.S.D.D and Team Player (level). 01:16, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm pretty sure that qualifies for speedy deletion, actually. Go forth, with the super admin powers, and take 'em down. 16:06, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. You put your signature twice, Saint. 16:07, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Taken care of. And yeah, that happens some times when I accidentally type four tildes instead of five.

Explosive tip crossbow
What exactly does this have to do with Call of Duty? It's basically just a grainy picture and an explanation on how there's nothing on the page.

Support - as nominator. 21:48, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - It is a weapon in a Call of Duty game, so keep it. 22:01, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Ah, someone put that in there since I posted this nomination. Okay then.

Voting Closed, article is relevant to Wiki 02:34, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 voice actors
It's redundant. Voice actors are listed on the MW2 article and their respective character pages.

Support - As nominator Chief z 08:56, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Support - We've been through this before. 16:16, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Completely unnecessary. I'll take care of it. 16:23, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

M1126
Another redundancy. We already have an article about the vehicle; it's the Stryker. It should be merged or deleted.

Support - As nominator Chief z 09:43, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, so i just updae that article. And maybe can do a shortcut M1126 to Stryker?

Doesn't count for deletion, I'll just change it into a redirect page. 16:18, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Active Clans
I'm sorry, but this feels like more of a "belongs in the Forums, rather" type of article. Plus, it's incredibly short, and has some 1st person message up at the top.

Support - as nominator. 04:22, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the first person message, and the list will grow. It's partially useful, because some people use the clan tag feature just to add some random stuff in front of their gamertag, instead of representing their clan. Sorry if this wasn't where I was supposed to disagree.

Disagree EightOhEight 04:53, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

'"Support"' i-intelligence-i 08:21, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Support and Closed I will move all of this information to a Forum and delete the page. 03:56, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Hey!
Has nothing to do with CoD and makes no sense.

Support - As nominator. Chief z 14:39, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Uh... what? Supercancer 21:46, December 4, 2009 (UTC) nomination already closed

Closed - Article qualified for speedy deletion and was deleted last night.--WouldYouKindly 21:50, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Call of duty Classic
I don't think the "classic" version really deserves its own page. It's just a DLC port of CoD 1. Reflex edition probably deserves its own page, but, meh...this is just a clone of the same game on the internet, basically. It would be like making a page for the Mac ports of Call of Duty.

Support - as nominator. 23:20, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay because It is a call of duty game

Support - I agree, but it should be transferred to the CoD1 page.  T   C    E   05:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Haggerty
Extremely unnecessary, and very short.

Support - As nominator  T    C    E   06:12, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support - He's probably just a randomly generated character, and I don't like this article. 02:24, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Probably just randomly generated, and it's a terrible article. I'll take a look and delete if necessary. 18:37, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Macey
Also unnecessary, probably by the same editor. These articles would be better in a compilation of characters with no role.

Support - As nominator  T    C    E   06:20, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - God, I hate this article. 02:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - My argument as editor is that the name Macey is not random, that he and Keating always appear in the level S.S.D.D and are always playing basketball, without one, the other is useless. The article may or may not be better than it is now if you give it a chance. But Macey is always going to be in the game programmed to that one place alongside Keating no matter what. Lotsi 02:44, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with the above user, Macey is a unique character model, and he is notable for being one of the basketball guys so I don't mind if this article stays. --Ant423 03:42, December 18, 2009 (UTC)Ant423

George Washington (In universe)
So there are some portraits of him in that one house in Exodus. Does he really deserve a page?

Support - as nominator. 05:38, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

STRONG FREAKIN' SUPPORT A very useless article. Peter Griffen Boy 21:52, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - He is also seen in wiskey hotel along with pictures of other presidents, but I agree with Peter Griffen Boy it is a very useless article. 3:22, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Completely irrellevant. 18:05, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

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)

Sgt. Yuri Gargarin
Before I begin, let me just say that I haven't played CoD2 before. But, chances are, if he was a major character, he would have already had a page. And, this page has his rank in the name. Big no-no, a sign that the editor that made it isn't that experienced. Also,the page is in general bad shape.

Suppport - as nominator. Also, if this doesn't pass, can someone at least move the page to the appropriate name? But wait until the voting is done. 17:46, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - He's just a randomly generated character, so I'll go ahead and delete the article now. 18:23, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Challenger 2
Not only is this article a page copied out of the encyclopedia, or maybe the dictionary, but...what the HELL does this have to do with anything in Call of Duty? If it does, then why doesn't someone...mention it? Just look at it if you need more reason.

Support - as nominator. 17:57, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Completely irrelevant. 18:24, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Watermelon
There are also oranges. And dinner plates. And things that you shoot at, and knife. This does not deserve an article, but I put it up for discussion anyway. 18:27, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. 18:27, December 19, 2009 (UTC)