Forum:Deleting Country articles

This isn't the first time I've raised the issue of deleting country articles. Despite previous discussion, especially regarding notabilty guidelines, nothing has been done. I believe there are strong arguments in favour of removing country articles entirely.

Reference links:
 * Category:Countries
 * COD:NOTABLE

The main reason for deleting country articles is that they contain little to no information about the country itself. Rather, the article present the subject as a setting of notable events that happen there, but do not establish notability of the country itself.

Think of this way: when you open an encyclopedia about England, you expect to see information about England. There is information about the history of England, its geography, economy, politics, and so forth. All of that pertains to England. You shouldn't expect to see content such as the English football team winning the World Cup or The Beatles hitting the charts with "Let It Be". This is an important distinction: encyclopedis try to attribute notability to the most specific subject. Of course the English football team is English, but their feats should not fall under the "England" article beyond a mention in a specific section.

Basically, we fail to establish notability for countries on the wiki.

COD:NOTABLE states: Articles that are specific to their subject take precedence in notability. The example is ironic, given that the respective country article was not deleted. Ukraine contains no information about Ukraine. Instead, it contains summaries of missions that happen in Pripyat. Why do we need an article for Ukraine when the only thing Ukraine has a claim to is the inclusion of Pripyat as a setting? As I argued in the Granularity discussions, it's not different to making a notability claim for "Earth" because all events in COD take place on Earth (except for one).

Vietnam contains no information on Vietnam. Instead, it lists three locations within Vietnam. The locations contain no information about themselves; only summaries of the individual missions that take place. How is Vietnam notable when all the information is contained within the mission articles? Tunisia contains no information about Tunisia, only the campaign featured in Call of Duty 2: Big Red One. Canada and Poland don't even appear in the game; their apparent claim to notability only being through Canadian or Polish characters. It's a far shot for an individual soldier's actions to establish notability for an entire country.

The major countries, on the other hand, do have a substantial claim to notability. The United States features numerous events that occur on a geopolitical scale, as does the Soviet Union and, to a lesser extent, Nazi Germany.

The line should be drawn when events encompass the country and not solely its armies. We recognise factions, but that doesn't automatically make their affiliated country important. Just because Rojas is Brazilian and that Task Force 141 runs around Rio De Janeiro shouldn't mean that Brazil gets an article. If Alex Mason took a walk through Melbourne, does that mean Australia gets an article?

As precedent, we did delete Australia through AfD on the basis that it does not make a notable appearance in the game, with only several soldiers having a possible connection with the country.

In summary, while the major countries do tick off multiple notability criteria, other country articles fail and should thus be considered for deletion.

Discussion
Agree fully. LITE992 11:31, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Same with many location articles, but everyone sticks to these policies like glue. I remember when nominating Kowloon for deletion, the only opposition was because it fell under COD:NOTABLE. People need to remember that you Ignore All Rules. Seijana 17:25, January 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * While I'd support removing minor countries, such as Laos which probably can't be expanded, countries which are notable due to many levels being set there, mainly France and Nazi Germany are more... underdeveloped, perhaps not reaching their full potential. Having said the above, however, I personally fail to see the benefit of removing these pages. Why? Because they don't harm the wiki. They don't feature speculation, they don't really have much to add either. They aren't a burden to the wiki.


 * So, rather than removing them, I propose that we'd shave all the weapons/poorly written general crap at the bottom of each page, which I think you'd agree just looks aesthetically awful. Instead we'd replace that with content, and where we can see fit, pictures. When we get the pages fixed, then we decide whether or not the page deserves a proper place on the wiki based on whether or not the content actually benifits the wiki. Nazi Germany has a beautiful setting in the game, we see the Russian invasion of Germany thrice, each from a different perspective, as well as the British and American invasions of Germany also. While I admit I have neither game, (which would be an enticement to get the downloadable game), I'm sure there are also several editors who share this view who do have the game. 17:45, January 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * There was an AfD discussion not long ago concerning Asia, which was deleted because it contained next to no information which related to Call of Duty. I agree that we should get rid of Canada and Poland, but the other "big countries", like France and the Soviet Union, are featured in several games and Germany is found in almost every game. Personally, I am indifferent as to whether these articles are deleted or not, as we are not limited to the number of pages on the wiki. 18:53, January 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just want to add here that "it doesn't harm the wiki" is not a legitimate case in favour of anything. Unless articles are leaping out of screens to smack users or cause irrepairable psychological damage, nothing on the wiki is harmful. The point is to keep the wiki within the intended scope to provide relevant and meaningful information. Otherwise, we could easily fill up the wiki with tons of things which wouldn't be harmful, but wouldn't be Call of Duty. --Scottie theNerd 03:27, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

This kind of makes me wonder why the IRL policy was put into effect when there is so much real life information regarding WWII.  Shotrocket6  Talk 18:51, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for deleting the unnecessary articles we have- if people want to read about Asia, they can go to Wikipedia. We are a Call of Duty wiki, not a wiki about everyone and everything. -- 20:00, January 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with this. Look at countries like Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union. All three of these countries play major roles - sometimes central roles - in most, if not all, Call of Duty games. Per the real-life project, why not keep these articles, but keep them about CoD? E.g. we could mention that America has played a major role in every CoD game, name the American playable characters, etc. For everything else, there's our good friend Wikipedia. The only country articles I'd support being deleted are ones like Australia, whose only mention is a flag patch on a single character. Sgt. S.S. 20:24, January 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned earlier, Britain, America, Russia, Germany, and the Soviet Union would all stay. The other countries could be put up for deletion, as most are only included because characters come from that particular country. As an alternative, I would suggest creating a page entitled "Minor locations in Call of Duty". That way, we could have a paragraph on Rook's shoulder patch, MacMillan crawling through Prypiat, and the Canadians from Roads to Victory. This would alleviate the problem of having half a dozen stub-length articles with only a sentence of information relating to the actual series, and instead having a decent sized "mini encyclopedia". 21:11, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's too many exceptions to an already established rule. Given the fact that no Call of Duty game has provided an extensive and alternative background to any of those countries, Wikipedia is suitable enough for our readers. 02:00, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sgt. S.S.: I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. I said that major countries such as the United States and the Soviet Union do have a claim to notabiity. Yes, they are central to several games, and there's nothing specifically wrong with documenting their involvement with the series. @Eltomo85: There's nothing to gain with a list of minor "locations" given that most of them aren't...well, located. You can't write a section for Australia because one person wears a flag patch. Otherwise we'd be stuck writing lists for every location stated in every mission loading screen. We can't cover that sort of information, and having such a page would load it with tons of trivia and cruft. Prypiat, by the way, is an example of notable location, with important mission and plot events taking place and being visited in more than one game. --Scottie theNerd 03:23, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Scottie: I see now that the idea is slightly flawed in that the list would be quite long, but yes, Pripyat plays a key role in two missions. 17:59, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

On a stylistic note, when editing country articles, it's important to take the facet of the country rather than of its individiuals. For example, if talking about the United Kingdom, talk about their general involvement in WWII as seen through the COD series rather than specific Sergeant Evans and his plot summaries. It makes sense that we cover the holistic view of the country instead of making David Beckham appear to be the representative of all things English. --Scottie theNerd 03:23, January 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Still, France, Germany and Russia (USSR) all provide massive settings for the games, we just need to get more information and game screenshots in those. 20:48, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a setting, alone, is not grounds for notability -- primarily because we do not have any information about the setting that isn't a 100% copy of a mission summary. France is problematic because as an entity, France has done very little (or even nothing at all) in the Call of Duty universe. You therefore cannot write an article about France when it has as much information on France as Vietnam or Laos. In contrast, Germany and the Soviet Union have a significant geopolitical role in the series. Other than being settings for events, the COD series features their involvement in politics, science and military; whereas information on France is as common as the Pacific Ocean in which the Black Cats land. In essence, France's contribution to the series is better covered in French Resistance, its faction. --Scottie theNerd 04:24, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for getting rid of those articles. They're not necessary in any way. 01:28, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Deletion proposal
Based on the above discussion, I propose a vote that we purge Category: Countries, keeping only the major countries that have had significant roles in the Call of Duty series. By definition, the roles include major geopolitical or militaristic actions that can be directly attributed to the country and not inherited from a specific sub-group. Note that many of the sub-groups are stubs or lack general information, adding further argument to deleting minor country articles to focus on developing the relevant aspects.

The following countries will not be deleted based on their significance:
 * United States
 * Soviet Union
 * Russia - Separate from the Soviet Union, its geopolitical situation is central to the Modern Warfare storyline.
 * United Kingdom
 * Nazi Germany - An iffy one; the Nazi regime does have a role in post-WWII games, notably in the plot of Black Ops.

The following countries will be deleted. I have provided a brief rationale for each.
 * Brazil: Is only a setting; has no role identifiable with the country. Associated sub-group is Brazilian Militia.
 * Canada: Has no actions attributed to the country. Associated sub-group is Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada.
 * Cuba: Is only a setting for a single mission. Associated leader character is Fidel Castro; associated sub-group is Tropas.
 * France: Although most WWII games are set in France, as a country France does not play a role. Associated sub-group is French Resistance from Call of Duty 3.
 * Italy: Does not play a role as a country, but its armed force is an enemy faction. Article needs to be created.
 * Japan: Plays no role as a country. Associated sub-group is Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy.
 * Laos: Is only a setting for "Crash Site" and "Payback". Plays no role and has no associated faction.
 * Netherlands: Has no role in any game, being cut from World at War.
 * Poland: Setting, but no significant role. Associated faction (should be) 1st Armoured Division.
 * Tunisia: No faction or role; is a setting for a battle between the British and Germans.
 * Vietnam: A major setting, the country itself has little mention. Associated factions: Vietnam People's Army and Viet Cong.

Please vote to support or oppose the countries listed here, and thus establish a precedent for COD:NOTABLE. If there is any specific disagreement, please elaborate in the comment section below. --Scottie theNerd 15:22, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * --Scottie theNerd 15:22, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * While articles like Netherlands should be deleted, I really feel that if a country even plays a role as a setting, that should be enough to merit even a small article. I'm undecided on this one. Sgt. S.S. 12:45, January 23, 2011 (UTC)