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.

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. Major Du 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)
 * Fair enough, switched to Support . Doltensig.jpeg 13:46, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, you changed from Support to Support? --Scottie theNerd 14:58, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Oppose, my bad. Doltensig.jpeg 23:27, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The reason why I say this is: It's like having a ZombieWiki, without an article on George Romero. Bowling is one of the masterminds behind the Modernwarfare series. Sure it's Meta-article (Meta, real, not in the game), but it's relevant. It could atleast be merged with "Respawn Entertainment", if you absolutely need it gone . PFC.Stockholm 15:14, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The reason why I say this is: It's like having a ZombieWiki, without an article on George Romero. Bowling is one of the masterminds behind the Modernwarfare series. Sure it's Meta-article (Meta, real, not in the game), but it's relevant. It could atleast be merged with "Respawn Entertainment", if you absolutely need it gone . PFC.Stockholm 15:14, May 31, 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)

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)

Oppose - I assume you've never played anything before Call of Duty 4? CoD:Big red one, you play in a B-17, fighting enemy luftwaffe units. Call of duty: Finest hour, you are a russian tanker, assaulting a luftwaffe airforce. Call of duty: roads to victory, like BRO's level.PFC.Stockholm 15:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Braden 0.0. Pvt. Dunn  00:06, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

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

Support- as nominator.  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)

Support - I put this up for AfD a while ago, for similar reasons to the OP. Sgt. S.S. 18:38, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Marines K.I.A. during Shock and Awe
I don't think it's necessary to have an article on every named Marine who got nuked. Sgt. S.S. 20:22, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Sgt. S.S. 20:22, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support I suggest it should be merged with Shock and Awe, not deleted. Personally, I think, that with videogame wikis noting things that wouldn;t normally be noted, that the amount of work put into this page is worth saving. Extremofire 00:44, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There isn't an article on "every" named Marine. It's a list of Marines that were KIA as listed in a particular mission briefing scene -- a fact that does make it worthy of an article. The article is at least well-presented and does clarify that nature of the list, including several main characters. Merging would be inappropriate, as it would clutter the Shock and Awe article and would result in the articles being split anyway. --Scottie theNerd 01:59, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Wouldn;t merging this sort of defeat the purpose of making the Trivia pages? Smuff 14:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Merging would clutter the page to much, but we need the information. So just keep it as is. 13:41, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Scottie, and merging the page would lead another user to makeing it a seperate page anyway. -- CodExpert 15:10, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Scottie. 15:55, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - keep it as a memorial so to speak User didn't sign. --CodExpert 00:09, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not saying we should merge the page, I'm saying we should delete it altogether. We don't base articles on how much effort went into them, we base them on how informative and useful they are. Sgt. S.S. 16:43, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - How is that page not informative? 16:45, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think it's very informative; it's also useful for say, a person that wants to see a list of Marines K.I.A during Shock and Awe. -- 16:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Scottie. Pvt. Dunn  00:07, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Per scottie, Plus I worked hard on that (100% beside the point i know)  T  C <font color="Gold"> E  <font color="Crimson"> B 01:22, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's very informative and would clutter the main S&A page if it were merged there. Darkman 4 01:35, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Stalingrad
This page has little information pertaining to Call of Duty, I believe it should either be deleted or drastically cut-down, it is essentially written as if it were "The History of Stalingrad".

Support - as nominator.

Oppose- can be fixed to meet standards<font color="#FF00FF">nlm gr  01:19, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- It'll probably be purged once the new notability policy comes into effect. All links to that page can easily be changed to redirect to Wikipedia's Stalingrad article. Darkman 4 01:35, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- Stalingrad is in a COD COD 2 Finest Hour and World At War, It's the site of the bloodiest battle in history and is featured in many of the WWII COD games, Its like we delete that we should delete Washington DC Because The Russo-American War was there. Squelliot Talk Edits. 23:06, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I have adding major information pertaining to Call of Duty, but it may quallify for the improvement drive. --CodExpert 03:31, June 7, 2010 (UTC)