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.

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.

Neutral If anything, shouldn't it be merged with Multiplayer Classes? Gmanington MCCCXLII 20:02, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This AfD is long overdue for closure. I'm throwing in a support vote on the basis that the article is a list of wikilinks with no additional information. The multiplayer classes already have accessible navigation via categories and a navbox. --Scottie theNerd 08:28, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I think it should stay for new people -- N'thro Notadee  10:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ammo Crate
This info is already covered in Ammo Crate (Care Package). Sgt. S.S. 10:37, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Sgt. S.S. 10:37, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support + merge - The Ammo Crate actually has some pretty good info right now!! I think we should merge to assure that neither are deleted and the information is lost. Who agrees?  Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 10:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Does anyone want me to take the info from that, copy it, then paste it into the other, thus making that longer, having a better reason to keep it? EVERYBODY WINS!!!  Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 10:52, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not going to copy and paste this article to the other without your guys approval...  Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 11:06, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The article attempts to merge the campaign ammo crates with the care package drop. Campaign ammo crates are rare and have nothing really notable about them, so I would suggest that Ammo Crate redirect to Ammo Crate (Care Package).--Scottie theNerd 11:08, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just upgraded the page but it looks a bit clustered. Anyone care to try to fix it? Ammo Crate < Click it!  Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 11:38, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad merge, in my opinion. It's better to keep the articles as they were instead of merging them while both are in the AfD process. --Scottie theNerd 11:44, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - 1. If you can do better, than I want to see it. 2. Now your just trolling.
 * I'm not touching the article until it goes through the AfD process. --Scottie theNerd 12:04, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

A.K.A. I can't do better...
 * There's little point in improving an article that is about to get deleted. If the consensus is to keep the article, we can work on improving it then. Also, I will ask kindly that you cease your public insinuation. If you have an issue, please raise it on my talk page or with an administrator rather than on the AfD page. --Scottie theNerd 12:10, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose + Merge - It has some pretty good information right now and I see no reason for its deletion. Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 21:02, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Merge It should be merged with the other Ammo Crate page. Darkman 4 07:47, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

M203 Grenade Launcher
Not to be confused with M203 in article sense. I have nominated this because it is a blank page unlike the M203 article  N'thro Notadee  10:10, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support As nominator  N'thro Notadee  10:10, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a redirect. Also, fixed the template. 10:12, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Eh, just redirect it. --Scottie theNerd 11:01, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Direct impact
This article is just to do with the standard mechanics of a Grenades, it should be merged with the respective Grenade articles.

Support as nominator - Smuff 11:39, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Information can be merged with respective grenade articles. Direct impact itself is not a gameplay aspect that can be discussed and written about. --Scottie theNerd 13:48, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above.  Your nuke is ready, turn the key! 05:38, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Needs to be merged with The grenade article. 23:15, April 10, 2010 (UTC

Trivia pages
We do not need any more pages as is, and it makes no sense. The pages were targeted for speedy but Callofduty4 kept taking the speedy deletion template off...

 Your nuke is ready, turn the key! 23:20, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - Callofduty4 worked very hard on those for the reason that some pages had more trivia than article. 23:22, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We do not need them. Guests need not be forwarded to a different page just because he needs to see whether or not he wants to read it. Those two are out of control they should have proposed this and did it based on the communities decision, not on the decision of two admins. And, I have no idea where you come from, but Copy + Paste isn't very hard where I come from...  Your nuke is ready, turn the key! 23:26, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Cod4 made those for a reason. I believe they deserve to stay.  Sactage  Talk  23:31, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Dude, no your vote should not count. You and him randomly made the pages. We need to community to agree on it, not 2 admins (You and Cod4).

Comment - I'm not an admin, genius.  Sactage  Talk  23:41, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Look at Wolverines!/Trivia. More than 3/4 of that article was trivia. It is not necessary for all that trivia to be on one page. It was either cut the section down, or move it to a separate page. Besides, I left links to each of the trivia subpages, so what could possibly be the problem? Also, I spent time on them as Dunn said, and TheManOfIron, I am insulted that you fail to appreciate the effort I put into trying to make the wiki more user-friendly. 23:35, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I fail to see how that can make it harder. More articles = Harder to use.

Strong Oppose - CoD4 made them for a reason, right CoD 4? lol  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 23:43, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - So you're saying that the less redirects we have, the better. I left a bloody link to the article. How difficult is it to move the cursor over to the link and click? Are people really that lazy these days? A massive wall of text at the bottom of an article leaves a really bad impression, and not everybody wants to read trivia, especially those who have read it before, and are reading the article for tips on the level. Also, you made a fatal mistake in your above comment, the first "harder" I assume was meant to say "easier". And W567123daniel, that is correct. 23:46, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While this took a little bit getting used to, CoD4 put a lot of work into this, and this seems like a good idea. At the MOST, what we'll do is try it out and leave it like this for a month, then see what people say. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez Reportin' for duty. 23:49, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Trivia is a chronic problem with most wikis. On CoDwiki, many articles were mostly trivia. Though some attempts have been made to reorganise trivia into meaningful sections and integrating them with the articles, far too many articles are bloated with trivia. However, as it is CoDwiki's goal to document everything in the games, trivia is actually valid content. So, instead of having an article that is 70% trivia, creating a separate trivia page is far more accessible than keeping it in the article. It's a perfectly sensible decision. Also, speedy deletion tags can be removed if the article does not meet speedy deletion criteria; and this is just the sort of article that should be debated, not deleted. --Scottie theNerd 03:14, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Very strong support - The pages are no use at all. They are more complicated than having it all in one article, and the articles were made because two (!) admins decided they were needed. No vote, no War Room discussion... nothing. Sgt. S.S. 17:32, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - COD4, I know that you think you were helping, but you've made it even worse. There are now a ton of stupid sub-articles for every MW2 and WaW mission. New users will take one look at them and say, "For Christ's sake, why not just put it in one article? Now I have to remember to go to some dumb sub-article every time I want to add a bit of trivia." I also think that this merits a War Room discussion. Sgt. S.S. 17:39, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. It is standard procedure on wikis that when an article becomes bloated with too much information, it is split into separate pages to contain the content that would otherwise be dismissed. Accessing the trivia page is only one click away. It's not hard to remember to add trivia to the sub-page because it's the only page with trivia on it, thus freeing up the main article of cluttered dot-points. If you're accusing Callofduty4 of "making it worse" and slamming the sub-articles as "stupid", you're practically saying that we should remove trivia sections altogether. And while this is the sort of thing that would definitely be needed to be discussed in the War Room, we're effectively having that discussion right here. --Scottie theNerd 17:44, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - No need, I already started a War Room discussion/voting forum. Link here. Sgt. S.S. 18:03, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - These look like they contained alot of work put into them, and also, pages like the M4A1 were at times more than 50% trivia. Smuff 20:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Well if were going to have Singleplayer map Trivia pages, how about making retarded Trivia pages for every god damn Weapon, Map and Character. HEY! lets go make a Ghost Trivia page, cause he has alot of Trivia too, or how bout Soap hes been on the cover..... Call of Duty 4 freaking basicly took a douche on this entire wikia Qw3rty! 16:48, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Separate trivia pages are only made if a page has a very large amount of trivia. The weapon pages and most character pages wouldn't need a separate trivia page because of how small the trivia section is. Darkman 4 20:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Just use them in the page. there is no point to create a page that takes more doing to get to. I hate them EpicLegand28 19:42, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The Trivia section took up way too much space on pages. I tried making them a bit more smaller, but it didn't work. Splitting them off into different pages makes the main page look much better. Darkman 4 20:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This pages are needed and stops clutter on the main article. Talk 20:17, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think they're excellent pages, they divide up the total size and make it easier on those who have slower internet, also an Admin made them, someone who was chosen for his knowledge of policies and decision-making skills, honestly I love the pages. And basically per everyone, especially Darkman4.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 20:28, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

MEGA Oppose - There very helpful, theres a huge ammount of info in them. 20:33, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Rather than create entire pages for trivia, we should focus on making smaller, easier to read trivia sections by eliminating repetition, useless facts and any speculation. Creating trivia pages will only encourage people to fill them up as much as possible with any random thing they feel is trivia. Ant423 23:06, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Soldier
The article is just stating the obvious about an aspect that is present in every single war game ever conceived, and does not need explained to anyone who has ever played an FPS. The article itself contains no information physific to CoD.

Support - As nominator. Smuff 23:14, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - some people don't know.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 23:16, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If you're playing a FPS, you probably know what a soldier is. Most people know what a soldier is anyway. &#123;&#123;COAZ}} 23:18, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Darth with all due respect, WTF? To not know what a soldier is you would need to be living under a rock. The Afghanistan War is always mentioned on TV, and practically all schoolboys play console games or pretend to be soldiers. I mean really, that's like saying people don't know what clothes are. Smuff 01:24, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - with all due respect I have no idea what "physific" means, and Soldiers are very relevant to CoD, because some people don't watch the news, you're making gross generalizations and stereotyping people by both gender and age-group, if you can provide any real arguments that don't disgust me I'll support this.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 01:28, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I see nothing wrong with the article, it has good info, it's a good article in my opinion. Gen. Ex Ask the Expert! He'll answer!   01:32, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I can't spell a few words, I'll fix that tomorrow. But it wasn't really stereotyping, it's human nature, when you were young in school don't tell me you have never once pretended to use your hands a guns and play all those war games. And Soldiers are also relavent to WoW, MAG, Battlefield, Halo, Operation Flashpoint, Killzone, Gears of War, Resistance, Medal of Honor, Brothers in Arms, SOCOM, an absolute ton of movies, and real life, so it's not necessarily that unique to this game, therefore it doesn't need it's own place on this wiki, hence we have Wikipedia. Smuff 02:14, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - CoDwiki isn't a dictionary. A soldier is a common, everyday term that is seen in the media as well as in literature. Detailed information about soldiers and armies can be found in better places; it isn't the role of CoDwiki to explain generic terms. If we keep a generic article about "soldiers", we might as well have articles on topics such as gun, army, Arabic, helmet, plane, glove, cigar and practically anything else that would turn a paragraph into a single blue wikilinked wall of text. While soldiers are certainly relevant to Call of Duty, there is nothing specific that we can write about soldiers pertaining to COD other than "They are in Call of Duty", and that is exactly all that is in the current article. There's no "good" info in there -- there's no info in the article. Furthermore, this article would be disallowed based on the pending Notability guideline that has been discussed in the War Room. --Scottie theNerd 02:44, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - per Scottie.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 02:46, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you! Sorry about what I said earlier, I'm not great with examples... Smuff 13:36, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Execution of Yasir-Al-Fulani
Sgt. S.S. thought this should be deleted, so I'm hoping he will be able to elaborate as to why here. 19:35, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - This article can all be placed to Yasir Al-Fulani (Actual Article), if it were to be deleted, I would put the info from it onto Yasir Al-Fulani.

Support - belongs under Yasir Al-Fulani  Darthkenobi0 Talk 20:10, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ermmm... The Coup? Smuff 17:24, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Darthkenobi0. 17:40, April 23, 2010 (UTC) Support - Ditto Cpl. Dunn.  Sgt. S.S. Comms

Mills Bomb
The article contains barely any relivence to Call of Duty, it is basically an ammunition article, all of whch were deleted, therefore has no place on the wiki. It is poorly done, has no information about the actual game relivence itself and is mainly pictures

Support - as nominator. Smuff 12:01, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The article is in need of serious help, which would mean it should be the improvement drive so editors can be made aware of it. Mills Bomb is actually a grenade in Call of Duty and Call of Duty 2, but it looks like people forgot about this page and did not add the appropriate information about it. 12:50, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Why would you want to delete a weapons page? Slowrider7 13:02, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The other grenades have articles, why can't this have one? Niel15 13:05, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a legitimate weapon article; not an ammunition article. --Scottie theNerd 15:16, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox\coolcoolman9
i think it is just an article created to promote a gamertag. I deleted the content. COL Crockett  22:18, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to the page? If it's a spam page, mark it for speedy deletion. --Scottie theNerd 07:59, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Killed in Action
Previous AfD was not closed before archive and support for deletion still stands. The article provides a technical real-world definition of a war-related category, which has absolutely no directly relevance to Call of Duty. The only connections made with the games are a list of dead characters (many of whom were simply killed, not killed in action) and a bunch of quotes and references that have "KIA" in them. As stated in the previous AfD, if we keep KIA, we might as well make a Casualty article and expand that. --Scottie theNerd 07:59, May 4, 2010 (UTC)