Call of Duty Wiki:Articles for Deletion/Archive 4

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)

Comment - If its a minor thing delete it and put it in a article with things like that like a resturaunt in one with burger town and nates and the rest.

Support - There is an article called ''List of Buisnesses in Wolverines! ''and Cherubini's is included in there. 08:27, March 17, 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)
 * Comment - No offense, but I'm not sure I understand that reasoning.. Icepacks 11:56, 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)

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)

Support - Per above arguments. And Scottie, does that mean you oppose? Imrlybord7 07:56, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm abstaining from this vote. The comment was in reference to COD:G rather than this AfD. --Scottie theNerd 12:37, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support -Per all, it's a vulgar piece of scenery. T C   E   B 02:48, March 20, 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)

Weapon Equivalent
This article is filled with errors and what exactly qualifies something as a "weapon equivalent" is ill-defined. If two weapons are extremely similar, it can be noted on their respective articles. Imrlybord7 16:33, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator. Imrlybord7 16:33, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Agreed. What exactly is a weapon equivalent? I don't see how the PTRS-41 is identical to the Barrett .50cal. Sgt. S.S. 17:38, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's not a game-established concept and much of the information is either errorneous or redundant. --Scottie theNerd 08:57, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Has no place as a stand alone article. As already stated by the nominator, the weapon similarites can be noted in their respective articles. The article is organized poorly and is completely irrelevant. - Mortsedes 15:42, February 23rd, 2010 (EST)

Axis Player Modification
Honestly, this might even qualify for speedy deletion. We do not have articles on mods. It is from the wiki's earlier days, probably before policies were well defined and when the wiki had very few regular contributors. Imrlybord7 02:16, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. Imrlybord7 02:16, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Seconded. Icepacks 02:24, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Thirded. We don't need mods on stuff, that's what speciality forums are for. Cpl. Wilding 02:27, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Deleted. Per current policy. 22:14, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

3rd Person Cage match
Support 1

NeutralPending 0

Opposed 0

This has been made under 3rd Person Cage Match and should at least be merged or deletedEvilGRAHAM 0 23:03, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support As nominatorEvilGRAHAM 0 23:03, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article doesn't exist. --Scottie theNerd 00:00, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I already deleted it. Duplicate pages qualify for speedy deletion. Sorry, I probably should have posted an alert here. Imrlybord7 01:12, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the infoEvilGRAHAM 0 23:41, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Banana Magazine
Support/Comment as nominator. The entire idea that there is an article dedicated to "banana magazines" is ludicrous. That's not even the correct terminology. Banana magazines, such as they are, are a colloquialism referring to the magazines used by AK-series/style firearms. The correct nomenclature for such is "box magazine", but that too opens the issue of having an article for something that's never mentioned in game. If we do that, then we need articles for drum magazines, en-bloc clips, tubular magazines, and pan magazines as well. There's gotta be a line somewhere. And I'll blatantly say it right here, since it's just as good a place as any: if you're too stupid to know the real name for something, don't try to BS your way through it, because another idiot will see it and think it's right (banana mags lol). --  Griever0311   01:23, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Concurred with Griever on the use of incorrect terminology. Also, this article brings another challenge to the COD:G condundrum, as presented here. As Griever said, technically these real-life terms don't feature in the game, and we're just putting our own knowledge into the wiki to the effect of putting words into someone else's mouth. Unless we reform COD:G -- and urgently -- we'll get lots of articles on weapon components.

Support - Sigh. 01:44, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - even with the COD:G conundrum it is not mentioned in games it is just an magazine shape, so if we have to make this an article, that means we make one for every shape in the game, also there is not very much info. EvilGRAHAM 0 23:46, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Sad sad sadLt. Col. Gen.Cain T C   E 23:57, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support ;-) Imrlybord7 04:04, March 10, 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 nominator. Sgt. S.S. 21:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The information presented is significant. --Scottie theNerd 02:04, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Certantly a part of the game. You can die from it, others can die from it, and i know a gitch that can be done with it in Wasteland. I think it deserves an article. We can always make it stub, though. 7th Body 22:39, February 23, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Oppose - It's not like any of those Sex Doll articles, it's actually important to the game in the fact it can kill you, it has a place on the wiki. Just add the stub template. Smuff 10:15, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This article should stay in the wiki. It is actually and important boundry of most maps, and the page has some good info on it. Kidcorp 17:37, March 10, 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)

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

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)

Support - I don't think it has any relevance to the game series and therefore, a simple specification on the general info of the P90 should be enough for this caliber. SSD 天皇陛下萬歳！ 14:07, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

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