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.

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)

Strong Oppose - There comes a point where the trivia section becomes so large it detracts from the article. I really see no problem with the seperate pages. Like CoD4 said, have people become so lazy that they can't click a link? Keep the pages. Chief z 12:55, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I have to agree the trivia sections have become out of hand on some pages, something the Tactical Nuke page also suffers from, with the Trivia section being much larger than the article itself. Surely that would have it's own trivia page as well. However, I don't feel a seperate page is needed for it, as you have to load an another page, which on slower internet connections, is a little annoying. I do understand the purpose of it, but could we find an alternative, such as a click-down box option, much the way the game templates do, should more than one of them be on a page. The-Dreamcaster 14:00, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * We can hide templates, but we can't hide article section. Additionally, while loading the Trivia page might take longer for slower connections, the same can be said for loading the main article with the long trivia, which punishes all readers. --Scottie theNerd 14:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have no problem clicking on a link or loading a new page every time I want to read some trivia. My problem is why the trivia sections grew so big in the first place. How were these trivia sections even allowed to grow so big that they needed their own article? Is all of that trivia really necessary? Someone should have put their foot down and said "look there's too much, it's time for a cleanup." Hell, Wikipedia discourages trivia sections/articles. Ant423 23:15, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm no fan of trivia, every time I clean trivia sections up, more gets added. Truthfully, trivia sections are large because there's a lot of trivia. While some information can be better organised and integrated into the main article, most trivia is 100% relevant to the game and the article it's in. This isn't trivia like "Captain Price is ten millimetres shorter in Mission Two than he is in Mission One" or "His moustache is strawberry blonde instead of brown, as stated in his profile". They're pretty much all valid observations and minutiae that players have picked up over the years. The crucial flaw in your perspective is that CoDwiki is not Wikipedia, and CoDwiki hosts articles and information that Wikipedia wouldn't allow. --Scottie theNerd 08:37, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - After looking around the Wikia for a few days, plenty of articles would need similar treatment, notably, killstreak and Multiplayer map articles would need similar treatment to the Campaign Missions. Perhaps if this was to be accepted, a clear line needs to be put down when an article needs to have a seperate page for trivia and could be incorporated to cover all articles within the Wikia. The-Dreamcaster 14:10, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm in favor of simply moving them back to their respective pages.Delta  4-7 18:54, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 <font face="Segoe Print">Icepac <font face="Segoe UI">K <font face="Segoe Script">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. <font face="Segoe Print">Icepac <font face="Segoe UI">K <font face="Segoe Script">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)