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.

Melee (Tactic)
This page seems rather unnecessary and it sounds more like a strategy guide than an article.

Support - As Nominator Ant423 19:46, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I see no reason why we should get rid of it! It could help some players. Also, it has some pretty legit and nice information, and is well put together. Why delete all of that for nothing? TheManOfIron  T  C  E   B 19:50, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It is an article about a play style commonly seen in the game, which this wiki has a few articles about LITE992 19:58, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per LITE992. Braden 0.0 01:57, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Teh more teh marryer! (The more the merrier!) TheManOfIron  T  C  E   B 20:00, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I made the article to fill a gap, the Knife Monkey tactic is a well known piece of Call of Duty that everyone has come to know and hate (or love if you're doing it). If we have articles for Rushing and Camping, it is only hypocritical to take this off. Smuff 09:43, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Legitimate information; no reason provided for being "unnecessary". --Scottie theNerd 09:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - In its current state, this article is a freaking trainwreck, but with a move and some reworking it could be alright. Imrlybord7 13:21, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry about that Smuff 09:50, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I was completely unaware that there are pages for camping and rushing. In that case, I feel they should go as well, but whatever. Ant423 19:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This page actually helped me (jurryaany) out alot, and I have worked on it aswell! 01:48, May 9, 2010 (CET)

Oppose - This page is on a legitemit tactic. I believe and agree with Imrlybord7 that it shouldn't be deleted, but cut down to where its an article and not a fanmade strategy guide that may or may not work. Rambo362 00:17, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Tactic pages are useless, I think all "tactic" pages should b e deleted. 20:52, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A page which really just clutters up and does not much to help this wiki. ajr117 18:52, May 24 2010 (GMT)

Robert Bowling
I just don't think it's necessary. He's not a CoD character. There are two sides to the argument, keep him, like we keep the console pages, or delete, because he's irrelevant to the games themselves. I don't need him to play my games, but whatever.

Support - as nominator Icepac K s 22:51, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Comment - There are some wikis, such as the Half-Life Wiki which are full of "real-world" articles, which includes voice actors, production staff, etc., though I'm not sure exactly what the policy on that is here. That aside, the article could be a little better written. Also, if this article does end up staying, then we'll have to start making more real-world articles Ant423 04:00, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As a notable staff member, information about him would be relevant to CoD. --Scottie theNerd 07:02, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - WoWWiki has articles for practically every important member of staff, so does Half-Life Wiki, and Halo Wiki. Fourzerotwo is the main source of news in terms of Infinity Ward happenings (Maybe Respawn Entertainment soon enough) and has a place on the wiki. Smuff 09:50, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I was just wondering, because the voice actors don't have pages. Neither do Treyarch people or any other IW people. Icepac K s 21:03, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Richard Kriegler is the only other employee of a game developer to have an article, as far as I know. 01:08, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Although you may not need him while playing the games, he is a valuable source of information and relevant to Call of Duty. Keep the article. 18:42, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Scottie. <font size="3" color=darkblue>Major <font size="3" color=darkblue>Du <font size="3" color=darkblue>Nn 18:46, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Perhaps I'm biased as I made the article, but I feel it should stay as he's a very important person regarding Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games, and well-known among the community (whether he's liked or not). The Halo Wiki has an article on their community manager as well, so I don't see a problem. Moozipan Cheese 15:40, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - So we can have articles on real life PEOPLE but not real life info on guns that are in the game? 20:53, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * The information presented in the article has everything to do with the games. It's not discussing his favourite colour or whether or not he likes Justin Bieber. --Scottie theNerd 11:47, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Apple iPhone/iPod touch
It's pathetically short, and doesn't need to be on here. Is not as important as PS3 or Xbox 360.

Support - As nominator. 09:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CoD4. 09:56, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'd even do away with the other platform articles, as they have nothing directly related to Call of Duty. --Scottie theNerd 10:11, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie 21:16, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support- No argument, while other platforms are contested this really has no place as all it can run is Nazi Zombies.-- 21:24, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie. 20:54, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Cod4. <font size="3" color=darkblue>Major <font size="3" color=darkblue>Du <font size="3" color=darkblue>Nn 20:56, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Illuminati Codes
It's pointless

Support - As nominator. 09:08, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - But I think it should be merged with the Der Riese page. LITE992 15:49, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per LITE 21:18, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Like Lite said. <font style="background:black"> Squelliot Talk   Edits   23:44, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Has Been Merged with Der Riese Page. <font style="background:black"> Squelliot Wanna Talk?   Glorious edits   20:49, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Australia
The content of the article has nothing to do with Call of Duty. The article itself even states that Australia has on direct involvement in the Call of Duty series, therefore in accordance to our push for overhauling the wiki to contain only game-related information, I move that we delete this article. --Scottie theNerd 11:33, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - COD:G strikes again. This really brings up the question of in-universe related articles, as the only mention of Australia relating to Call of Duty is that some of the characters wear Australian flag patches. 11:38, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Funny you mention this, I was going to bring it up today. Yeah it's pathetic we have this article based on the pretence it appears on a character's arm. Smuff 16:13, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Maybe if it was slightly more involved with the Call of Duty/Modern Warfare series, it could stay, but simply having the flag visible on a soldier's arm isn't really acceptable. Moozipan Cheese 16:32, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - A large number of the 141 soldiers are from the Australian SAS so it warrents a page, if a small one. things like 'kamikaze' have articals. there was hope - while CoD7 was hoped to be in Viet Nam that Australian forces would play a significant part, that there is still a chance they might Agent Tasmania 10:15, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * This has already been addressed in numerous discussions. There is not a "large" number of Australian solders in TF141, and those who are notable enough already have their own articles (see Task Force 141, Rook (Modern Warfare 2)). Having several support characters in a game does not mean that an article about the country they're from. If COD7 does feature Australian involvement, then we'll make an article about the specific Australian unit that is featured rather than the entire country. The history of Australia and the name of its Prime Minister is of no relevance to Call of Duty. --Scottie theNerd 12:06, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie. 12:25, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - @Scottie theNerd Right, I guess the voting template is outdated. When does the new one come into play? 12:53, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie. 20:55, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We do not just have it for a patch on a character's arm. There is a possibility that Australians will be in Black Ops and Rook and Worm from the 141 were also Australian. And while yes it says Australia does not have any direct involvement in the Call of Duty series that statement is mainly aimed at the games set in World War 2. It plays a small role in Modern Warfare 2 and so it is game related it seems hypocritical that Russia and America should still get a page when Australia should not. And I know somebody will say Russia and America play a bigger role in Call of Duty but it sounds like the granularity policy should be in effect execpt apply it to countrys. And yes the name of it's prime minister and it's history are of no relevance to Call of Duty but that content can be deleted and we could only leave game related content. (I am going to try to do that within a day or two so hang on). In closing Australia deserves a page as much as Russia or America does.Foxtrot12 17:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Neutral-I tried to add info but Scottie is right Australia did not do much for Call of Duty. However I think that we should wait to see if they play a role in Black Ops before it is deleted.Foxtrot12 18:39, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's easily a six month wait. While I doubt that Australia will have any significant role in upcoming COD games, we can always re-create the article if we find solid information at a later date. --Scottie theNerd 02:19, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

All categories under Category:Weapons by Nation
As part of the overhaul, I'd like to push to remove these categories, as they divide weapons based on their country of manufacture, which is not relevant to the Call of Duty games or universe. In-game faction weapons are already easily accessible by weapon templates. --Scottie theNerd 13:41, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

AFD Closed - Articles... erm, categories qualified for speedy deletion under new policies. Imrlybord7 14:17, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Luftwaffe
Article has no use to the wiki, is not mentionned in game and barely acts as an enemy force in game. The entire page is history and does not mention the game at any point.

Support as nominator. Smuff 19:27, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - They are an enemy fought in Call of Duty: Finest Hour, and in Call of Duty: Big Red one as the forces that attack you from planes. They are featured in Call of Duty, so I don't agree with your reasons. Braden 0.0 19:33, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - So? We don't have ambulance articles, and you get shot by someone in one of those in No Russian. The article has NO information on this game, thus I see no need in it. Smuff 19:45, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparing it to the Internal Troops would be a better analogy. The FSB only appears in two (or three if you count the Special Ops mission) levels while the Luftwaffe appears in numerous. 04:20, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While the current article doesn't have anything to do with the game, the Luftwaffe does have a significant presence in the Call of Duty series, including the first mission in the British campaign in Call of Duty: United Offensive, in which Doyle shoots down half of the Luftwaffe (or somewhere near there <_<). The article should be improved rather than deleted. --Scottie theNerd 07:28, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry for disagreeing with you Scottie, but you save Hunter Three-One in Modern Warfare 2 and there is no article for that, I can't see why we have this article, if we got rid of Rommel it's only fitting this is removed aswell. Tell me you see anything to do with the game listed in that article. Smuff 20:36, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hunter Three-One is a specific unit that has no other notability in the game. The Luftwaffe is a major armed services branch that is present in every WW2 game and does have notable opposition to the player, in the same way we have articles on the United States Marine Corps, United States Army, German Military, Red Army and so on. --Scottie theNerd 01:44, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

VERY Strong Oppose - Per Branden. 20:57, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

President of the United States of America
No Significance to the Wiki.

Support- as nominator. <font style="background:black"> Squelliot Talk   Edits   01:19, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I made the article to test the boundaries of COD:G. As COD:G is practically defunct and a new policy is in the works, the decision of this AfD will be noted in the policy. It does fulfil the original notability guidelines in COD:G and the Character policy, although the president is never acknowledged as a significant character in COD. However, it is wrong to say that the article as no significance "to the wiki". --Scottie theNerd 07:30, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Griffin
The article is on a randomly generated character clearly stating that he may spawn as an african or caucasian model and does not list speficic information. The Griffin described in the article which is only one sentence is not about the soldier Griffen who is in Crew Expendable but about a randomly generated character. Even according to the Granularity policy it has no place on the Wiki.

Support-As nominatorFoxtrot12 22:50, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Foxtrot. 20:58, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

AfD Closed - Article qualified for speedy deletion. Imrlybord7 18:12, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ranks
Unlike the respective articles based on the unlockable content, the generic article on Ranks has nothing to do with Call of Duty. It currently only provides insignia and rank names, which are fine and dandy for modern military enthusiasts, but not relevant to COD. --Scottie theNerd 14:28, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - What about the soldiers in the game that go by those ranks? Sgt. S.S. 17:10, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about them? Characters all have their own articles. Why do we need the name, insignia and NATO pay grade of every rank in current military existence on one page? Also consider that the article only includes modern ranks rather than ranks used in the Second World War; and many insignia (notably the Russian ranks) are incorrectly placed as American ones. Within the Call of Duty series, a soldier's rank has never been a notable aspect in any regard. --Scottie theNerd 07:57, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie. Chief z 09:27, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

AfD Successful - Page was not relevant to Call of Duty. Imrlybord7 18:11, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Explosive Bolts
It should be deleted due to the fact that there is a page for bolts, both explosive and not. <font style="background:black"><font style="background:black"> Conqueror of  all Zombies  Ta lk  21:05, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support: 1

Neutral: 0

Oppose: 0

Support - As nominator <font style="background:black"><font style="background:black"> Conqueror of  all Zombies  Ta lk  21:05, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Tagged for speedy deletion. --Scottie theNerd 01:39, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty Roads to Victory Single Player Levels
Poorly written, bad grammar and title. (It has nothing to do with the levels as a whole, it only details one.) If it was rewritten, built upon and the name was changed it could potentially be a good article but at the moment it's in horrible condition. 18:05, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. 18:05, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

AfD Closed - Article qualified for speedy deletion. It should be a category. Imrlybord7 18:08, May 24, 2010 (UTC)