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)

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)

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)

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)