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)

Erwin Rommel
Doesn't ever appear in the Call of Duty series, he's not even ever really "experienced". For this same reason, I think Hitler's page should go too, but let's see what everyone thinks.

Support - as nominator. Icepacks 02:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Support - yeah, at least Hitler gets his own page because...he's Hitler, and what he did...but Rommel? That baby gets NOTH-ING. 17:38, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Pointless 19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - COD:G. Are you guys forgetting the point of this whole project? We are to cover every single bit of the series. Rommel has a level named after him, and he is mentioned by multiple characters. What more would you want? 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - Yeah, Chia does have a point there, with the Granularity policy. 08:24, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Rommel was an important figure in WWII and led the Afrika Korps there to secure oil fields there to support tank divisions. If it wern't for Rommel, the Germans would have little presence there and the British wouldn't be fighting them in Africa. If there was no battle in Africa during WWII, IW wouldn't have added it to their game. Green Wolf 17:36, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I disagree with COD:G in this case. He is a historical figure that has no bearing on the COD universe. Was he important to WW2? Yes. Is he important to COD? No. CODWiki is not Wikipedia -- it doesn't have to provide a historical context for every single historical figure when better sources are readily available -- and in better depth and detail. We end up lifting most of our historical text from Wikipedia anyway. --Scottie theNerd 00:51, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's silly to put this article in, considering the fact he is not seen or even talked about. I know this may have something to do with D-Day. Also, because of the COD:G we actually have to put up with articles like this. Smuff 10:23, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sergeant Hawkins talks about him before he, Denley and Roger get ambushed in Kasserine. 03:43, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment There is a Wikipedia page in Erwin Rommel with a lot more information. Delete this page and link to that? Jdcoolha 14:04, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Question/Support - Should I erase his gun? It says he uses a Walter. Also, this has nothing to do with Call of Duty.

Comment/Support - I agree with Scottie. This is a COD Wiki, not a Wikipedia. Erwin had absolutely NOTHING to do with COD. He is a historical figure, but did he influence anything in COD primarily? No. And I gotta say, same goes with the adolf hitler page, just look at the "Trivia" section:

''Call of Duty material. Hmm, maybe... NO.'' :  * In the campaign mission Downfall of Call of Duty: World At War you can hear one of Hitlers speeches close to the Reichstag. You can also hear the speech on the multiplayer maps Downfall and Dome. Then put this fact on the respective map pages! :  * Many people said that Hitler looks exactly the same as Charlie Chaplin ( 'King of Comedy' ). They had the same year, month, and hour of birth. Yes, Charlie Chaplin had much to do with COD, I guess we can keep that... :  * Adolf Hitler has not appeared in any Call of Duty games yet but is always mentioned mainly as The Fuhrer. ''Duh. It says it right there: ...has not appeared in any Call of Duty games...'' :  * Hitler died on April 30th 1945, the date when Downfall and Heart of the Reich takes place in Call of Duty: World At War. Again, put that on respective pages... :  * In Call of Duty 2, on The Mace, there can often be a Polish solder with the first name Adolf. ''Cool. No.'' y

The rest of the article is mainly copied from wikipedia. EDIT: And for the Granularity policy? Rommel isn't in the game. Period. He had a level named after him, thats all. This can be mentioned in the level article. The Granularity policy states that stuff in the game, no matter how miniscule, should have it's own article. The battle that it takes place in, thats reasonable. Much bigger historical value than the person the level was named after. Again, thats one little fact that can be mentioned in the level article! Extremofire 17:18, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Everybody likes a little history lesson sometimes, but we shouldnt be dedicating a page for someone only mentioned in CoD. Thats a historian's job.COOPERx223x 04:15, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Well in any North Africa campaign he is the target force, kind of like Gen. Armsel in Stalingrad

Support - I agree. This is only mentioned. We willl flood the wiki if we continue to put characters that are only mentioned in the series into their own page.

George S. Patton
He is not an in-game character and is only mentioned once in the entire series.

Oppose - Per reasoning with Rommel. We cover Call of Duty. He is in the Call of Duty universe. He is mentioned. COD:G. 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Support- If you put all the known info (FROM the games) on him it still would not be enough.Dolten 20:36, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Slayback (Modern Warfare 2)
Tottaly usless. Just about a guy eating while watching two soldiers. Waste of bandwith. - SkierPS3

Support- He's an incredibly minor character, we dont need a whole article on him. Corporal Morgan, RRoS 11:58, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Umm, does he fit either of these? If so, then Oppose. Demon Magnetism talk 16:32, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - To Demon, he is the same everytime but he is never mentioned ever in any dialogue, so he doesn't meet the requirments. - SkierPS3

Comment - He only has to fit one...at least, that was my knowledge of the situation. The granularity policy applies if one fits...Demon Magnetism talk 21:48, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment oops I thought it was both, but still: the only reason anything was written about him was because he MIGHT be a reference. But he doesn't do anything.

Support - A person eating and watching two other dudes really isn't worthy of an article. Its only a sentence. Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 08:30, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Killed in Action
An article about people getting killed isn't specific nor unique to Call of Duty. At the moment it's a copy of the Wikipedia article with a list of main characters who have died. Considering thousands of characters are KIA, it's hardly notable to create an article based on the KIA classification. --Scottie theNerd 00:58, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing Scottie Supports as nominator, and I support as the article is bad and it doesn't really deserve an article. 01:30, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - According to COD:G, everything gets covered, so Im gonna have to oppose. Also, I do think it deserves an article, for there are many references to Call of Duty, and it is a common thing in-game. 7th Body 23:19, February 12, 2010 (UTC)7th Body
 * The fundamental flaw in COD:G is that it has to be in the game. The KIA classification is not in the game per se. Players getting killed is simply that -- getting killed. It does not lend itself an article about a particularly military classification of casualties. If we keep this, we'll need to create articles for WIA, and hell, "casualty" in general, since there are hundreds of thousands of them. --Scottie theNerd 03:13, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with 7th Body with this article. COD:G says anything in game gets covered. KIAs are in MW2 and maybe other games. So what if it's minor, an article's an article no matter what you guys say. Roachrunner2010 2/14/10 21:33.
 * But again, many things appear in the game that aren't explicitly highlighted. There are thousands of casualties in the COD series, just as there are many characters who are probably African-American, Catholic and have moustaches. KIA isn't "in" COD; it's a real-life classification that has been applied to COD to describe the deaths of certain characters, which the article primarily is not about. --Scottie theNerd 06:33, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There is no rule breaking in the article and it would be easier to have a link to this than opening up a new browser or tab and searching on google "What does KIA mean?" It just makes everything simpler and simplicity is important if you want to maintain this wiki.  Your EMP is ready for launch! 07:36, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes it harder to maintain the wiki because of the huge number of derivative articles that are covered in much better detail elsewhere. We could have thousands of articles that have something to do with the content and setting of the game. We don't because there's Wikipedia; and where Wikipedia fails there's Google. We're not aiming to document every single aspect of combat, so your argument of keeping things "simpler" is flawed. And honestly, if you're asking "What does Killed in Action mean?", you're really not going to learn a how lot from CoDwiki. --Scottie theNerd 10:00, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

COD:G does say everything gets covered. For one, i believe it's 4 playable characters that have died, and many important characters have died, too. And saying that thousands of people in the CoD series have been KIA makes it more of a reason. To make it fun we could try to estimate the amount of people that have died in all of the CoD games, just to add to the trivia or something. 7th Body 20:41, February 24, 2010 (UTC)7th Body
 * So let's start a Casualty article and list every character that is killed or wounded, as well as the extent of their injuries and how much compensation their families would theoretically get. --Scottie theNerd 06:28, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

It'll give the Wiki Community something to do 7th Body 01:31, February 26, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Support - "COD:G does say everything gets covered. For one, i believe it's 4 playable characters that have died, and many important characters have died, too." - Many important and playable characters have breathed, ran, farted and been shot, but there's no "breathing", "running", "farting", or "/ohshiti'mshot" articles. KIA is in such common use in new media that its meaning and relevance go unsaid; there's no deviation whatsoever between the game and real life in this respect. KIA is KIA is KIA. The current COD:G policy is great for making sure important stuff doesn't get left out; but as with any policy or law, it must be wielded with a clear understanding of the intent behind it. Which bring me to... Having a giant list of every character that's died in CoD? "It'll give the Wiki Community something to do" - If we need something to do that badly, why don't we set up weapons/vehicles/character task forces and straight rewrite/massive expand on the articles that need it? I'm just sayin'... --  Griever0311   15:26, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Host Ended Game
I don't think this article is relevant at all and it doesn't really contain any helpful information. And the video in the article doesn't even work. Ant423 04:15, January 23, 2010 (UTC)Ant423

Support - For the same reasons.Dolten 20:39, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Most people know what host ended game means. It literally says it Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 08:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC).

Game System articles
This section is in regard to all the platform articles on CoDwiki, including Nintendo Wii, PlayStation Portable and Personal Computer. The articles do not meet inclusion criteria in the spirit of COD:G, as they are not directly or indirectly related to the games. The info on the platforms have nothing to do with the game, and the info on the games have nothing to do with the console. At best, it's a direct rip from Wikipedia that shouldn't be here. --Scottie theNerd 00:44, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't have a problem with them. 10:40, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify why you don't have a problem? I don't believe articles should be kept or deleted on the basis that certain people don't have problems with them. --Scottie theNerd 10:51, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I do not have a problem as they are relevant to the series, as without them there'd be noting to play CoD on, right? They're well written and perfectly fine. 13:38, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Without electricity, I couldn't play COD either. We come across the Granularity Conundrum again. --Scottie theNerd 06:01, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I believe they are relevant. Ant423 01:29, February 10, 2010 (UTC)Ant423
 * So is the manufacturer of my video card. How is this relevant and other technical components not? --Scottie theNerd 06:19, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Game developers like Infinity Ward, Spark Unlimited and Treyarch all have articles and though they are involved with the production of the games, they are not a part of the games' universes. Articles involving developers, publishers (Like Activision) and game systems provide real life/background information on the content that part of the universe. Ant423 14:38, February 10, 2010 (UTC)Ant423
 * I can understand articles for developers -- they are directly involved with the game and are undoubtedly relevant. However, in order to refine the COD:G problem, we need to start drawing lines. Is the console that essential to the game? Providing real-life background is not the focus of the wiki, as we have moved towards more game-related information and less background on real-life equivalents, so does providing information on a console really what readers want on CoDwiki? We have to keep in mind that eventually we want all articles to be moved from stub status, but we cannot do that with consoles without copying Wikipedia.
 * Essentially, I'm declaring the following points based on our discussion:
 * Development companies are fine based on the fact that they made the games, and are therefore directly linked to the games.
 * The platforms on which the games appear on do not need articles as it is irrelevant as to which console the game is on. The exception would be the Wii games, but such differences are already noted in their respective game articles.
 * My reasoning for the latter is that the platform, as well as the company that makes the platforms (e.g. Sony, Microsoft, etc.) have as much to do with the game as the vendor that sells it (e.g. EB Games, Walmart, etc.). --Scottie theNerd 05:34, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I have no problem with it, and I think it's pretty relevant. 7th Body 23:21, February 12, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Support - It barely has anything to do with CoD itself, the only reason some of these huge unneeded pages are still here is because of one tiny paragraph saying you can play CoD on it. Look at other wikis, Halo wiki doesn't have an Xbox article, and Wowwiki doesn't have a PC article. (I'm an editor there, but under a different name) Smuff 16:26, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - added voting template Captain Hax 217'  T    C     E  17:17, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

National Security Agency
I don't feel this article is necessary. The NSA appears exactly once in the entire series. No one in the games is confirmed, or even believed to be, in the NSA.

Support- As nominator. Hk37 03:08, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Well I suppose it'll be almost like the CIA, but albeit a bit less mentioned :/ --Novangel 03:04, February 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, but at least two characters are confirmed to be in the CIA. There are no characters in the NSA in MW2. Hk37 03:08, February 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Actually there's only one but yeah...I suppose it's not absolutely necessary.

Comment - Under current interpretation of COD:G, if it appears once, it deserves its own article. --Scottie theNerd 07:18, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - due to COD:G.

Ammo Crate (Care Package)
No need, all about Ammo Crates are in Care Package article. Zaqq 19:07, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It is a useless article, but the Ammo Drop has gained its own special place in most players heart. I know that sounds cheesy, but the Ammo Drop is by far the most socially popular drop you can get. Slowrider7 20:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It certainly plays a large enough role to merit an article. Don't forget, they (ammo crates) make appearances in campaign as well as multiplayer, and we also have to take COD:G into account. Sgt. S.S. 19:55, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose + Merge - Merge it with the other Ammo Crate article to create on large one!  Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 08:36, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

All Hardcore gamemode articles
These should be replaced with one Hardcore article. I feel very strongly about this. Imrlybord7 20:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator. Imrlybord7 20:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Single page could grow too long with tips for specific for disscussed mode. 62.142.195.207 05:49, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Each game mode is sufficiently different, even between Core and Hardcore versions. It's hardly different to saying we should merge all game modes together. --Scottie theNerd 06:32, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

All Difficulty Pages
I think we should merge all the difficulty as they are all very minor pages except VeteranDanielM4712 02:12, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support- As NominatorDanielM4712 02:12, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Individual difficulty levels are non-notable, as there can be nothing written about them. The exception is Veteran, as it requires a completely different approach to the game in order to complete successfully. --Scottie theNerd 07:01, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support merge - I believe COD:G applies here, but there's no need to have individual articles for each difficulty.--WouldYouKindly 18:40, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Extraneous articles. Imrlybord7 01:04, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

President of the United States of America
This article might actually qualify for speedy deletion. The president has no connection with CoD AT ALL, apart from a theory about Raptor in Wolverines! Sgt. S.S. 14:03, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator. Sgt. S.S. 14:03, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support- The article adds nothing to the wiki. We never see the character, nor does he speak. I believe this article should be deleted. Hk37 Need help? Contact me here! 14:06, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I created the article to test how far COD:G stretched. Technically, he is mentioned or at least his whereabouts is questioned. His bunker was compromised and, of course, his house is taken over before being recaptured. We cannot delete the article for the above reasons without rewriting COD:G, as I have begun discussing in the War Room. Also, other characters are "never seen" and "never speak" but still get articles because they qualify under the Character notability guidelines of being "specifically mentioned" (e.g. Erwin Rommel, Adolf Hitler, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Valentina, etc.). That said, I do believe the article should be deleted, but not without amending COD:G. --Scottie theNerd 02:48, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It doesn't help that the current POTUS is African-American, either. The article's become a target for racist vandalism. Sgt. S.S. 19:58, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalism always exists. It should not be a basis on which we delete articles. It doesn't matter if the President is African-American or WASP. --Scottie theNerd 02:48, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This page has implications of the plot-line of MW2, and the President is mentioned at the end of Second Sun. Therefore he does have a connection. Essentially Per Scottie  "Master Kenobi You have my thanks.Good editing. 20:05, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's basicly useless.Dolten 20:41, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't judge an article based on how "useful" it is. --Scottie theNerd 07:42, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support - There is really no reason. It's not important enough to keep. Theres barely any mention of the president and he is not mentioned enough. Your EMP is ready for launch! 07:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Automatic
Previously, attempts to tag the page have been overruled. In light of recent discussions and changes to COD:G, I propose that we delete this article and create a category for semi-automatic weapons, since the article is just a list and adds no meaningful information. --Scottie theNerd 02:42, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense. We should also do this for any other articles about firing modes (bolt action, automatic) if they exist. Imrlybord7 18:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm with Bord, it explains what *insert firing mode* is in the weapon's page most of the time anyways.Dolten 20:43, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I concur. This is a mere weapon firing mode.

Category: Ranks
We already have a large listing of ranks here (which is quite cluttered as is). Do we need articles on every rank with a list of notable characters holding that particular rank? --Scottie theNerd 13:00, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We can already learn the players rank in the army from his page. Delete. Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 08:33, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Dead Cows
Someone else put the deletion tag up, but I'm here to agree with it. Again, a question of COD:G, but I think if anything, Giant Cow and Dead Cows should be merged into Cow (and why is Cow a redirect for Giant Cow anyway?) This would consolidate the information and still satisfy COD:G. 17:24, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete and merge - As nominator. 17:24, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I definitely think there should be a cow article, as there are quite a few dead cows throughout the CoD series for comedic value, but we don't need two separate articles. Imrlybord7 18:56, March 21, 2010 (UTC).

Support - For then same reasons as Bord.Dolten 20:47, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ditto. Sgt. S.S. 18:11, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sorry about that! Does dead cows have ANYTHING to do with cod?
 * Dead cows were a frequent sight in the early COD games and was poked fun at by Infinity Ward in the credits. Before teddy bears, there were cows. --Scottie theNerd 08:15, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

FlugRuger
TBH, I think this is taking COD:G a wee bit too far. Where do we see any mention of FlugRuger? On the sides of planes in No Russian and The Hornet's Nest. Do we see it anywhere else? No. Needs to be deleted. Sgt. S.S. 18:12, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Sgt. S.S. 18:12, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support on the basis that the article is about a background scenic element that is non-recurring and has no significance elsewhere in the game. --Scottie theNerd 09:15, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This is just scenery. We don't have house articles or tree articles. Delete it.

Comment Added "voting" template Captain Hax 217  T    C     E  17:12, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Deagle
This article is a redirect which has an improper title. The term "deagle" isn't used in any CoD game and isn't a proper real life term either. Captain Hax 217 T    C     E  17:32, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator Captain Hax 217  T    C     E  17:32, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a common colloquialism. Redirects are very useful, and you can never have too many. 17:36, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If you seriously, with a straight face, call the Desert Eagle Pistol a "Deagle", you're a tool. I say we burn it to the ground. *DISREGARD* Keep the redirect for any jackasses who actually call it that. */DISREGARD* --  Griever0311   17:39, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Hax. Doc.  Richtofen  17:43, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per CoD4, "Deagle" is used a lot by kids, and redirects are helpful for people who can't be assed writing Desert eagle, or who want to see what happens when they put it in etc. -ScotlandTheBest 17:53, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - a "DEGAL" is a cross between a Doxin and a Begal. The gun is called the Desert Eagle--T C   E   B 17:57, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I've seen this used in global chat during matches in Call of Duty 4 very often; to say no one uses it a hyperbole. Also, there are redirect pages for M82, LTR, and Izhmash AKM when I've never heard anyone call the weapons by those names, but they are obviously useful to someone. Too many redirects is never really a problem. Too few redirects is a bigger issue. 17:58, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Bovell summed it up well. The fact that people use it, no matter how wrong it is, solidifies the need for it as a redirect. 18:23, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - "Deagle" comes from the console name given to the Desert Eagle (or "Night Hawk") from Counter-Strike. It's passed into common parlance among some gamers. As the article is a redirect, it doesn't hurt to keep it and deleting it is unnecessary. --Scottie theNerd 07:39, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As I have said before, I absolutely loathe this word, but we have to keep it just to make the wiki as navigable as possible. As Cod4 said, you can never have too many redirects. !02:33, April 4, 2010 (UTC)w

Oppose - the whole point of redirect pages is to redirect the user to a page if they don't type the name properly or the page goes under multiple names. Just because you don't like the word "Deagle" doesn't means we should delete a page for it that redirects to a page that has its proper name. Darkman 4 07:52, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. Sure I use it, but that was the two times I was too lazy to spell Desert Eagle, but some people are too lazy ALL the time and that means they'll never find the page because they'll never actually spell out the name of the gun.  Darthkenobi0 Talk 07:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Whats so wrong 'bout a redirect? Your EMP is ready for launch! 07:59, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
I propose this be deleted as it could offend people and it really has no place. Sure, Hitler is mention in maybe 1 or 2 games, but only briefly, making this more suitable for the real wikipedia.

Support - I nominated this.

Comment - The article is within the COD:G policy. However, this article is likely to be deleted once the policy has been revised or replaced. Discussion regarding COD:G can be found here. --Scottie theNerd 08:21, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I agree it would be offensive. ---hithaar

Comment - It's a historical figure. How could an article about a historical figure be offensive? --Scottie theNerd 10:09, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipedia has articles on the holocaust, the KKK, Hitler, Stalin, Robert Mugabe, but no one complains about them. 10:18, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - Good point... Strangely enough, I change my vote to oppose. Even though I nominated it.  Your EMP is ready, The Man Of Iron! 10:48, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * The article will be deleted when the new policy rolls out. It has no direct relevance to COD, which is why it is likely to be removed; not because it might be "offensive". --Scottie theNerd 11:06, April 4, 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)