For the same reasons as Macey.
Oppose - Like Macey, I think this one should stay. --Ant423 00:30, December 21, 2009 (UTC)Ant423
Oppose - Basically the same as Macey, he's not random and he's always there.
Oppose - He is a major enough character, he always appears with the same appearance in two missions, S.S.D.D. and Of Their Own Accord. He also speaks directly to Allen, and is voiced by Robert Bowling. Same with Macey, minus the speaking part and being voiced by Bowling. Sign your posts, number 3. 03:52, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Like the one above me, As chia said, Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity.
Challenger 2 Edit
Not only is this article a page copied out of the encyclopedia, or maybe the dictionary, but...what the HELL does this have to do with anything in Call of Duty? If it does, then why doesn't someone...mention it? Just look at it if you need more reason.
Support - Irrelevant to COD.19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, there is actually a choice of reason for deletion which is "Irrelevant to "CoD". I think it fits under that.19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Australian Special Air Service Regiment Edit
No specific mention or inclusion in Modern Warfare 2. The members included are part of Task Force 141, from which it can be inferred that they are either SASR or 2nd Commando, and the editors can't even agree. Without any solid reference from the game, this article does not meet Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. --Scottie theNerd 09:33, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you Support, as nominator Scottie - SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 01:30, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, support. I follow Wikipedia convention that AfDs are discussions rather than polls. --Scottie theNerd 07:35, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Its nice to know the regiments playersYeshwa1 09:51, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Its good to see Australia have its own special place in the CoD world. And besides Rook could be featured in MW3 as he was just injured not killed. —Unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199
- Comment - Firstly, we don't know if they're actually in the regiment. Secondly, we can assume that Rook is KIA and not WIA. Thirdly, if he is featured again, he has his own article. --Scottie theNerd 10:12, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
The reason I say he is WIA and NOT KIA is because when most TF141 members die their names dissapear but after Rook is shot his name still appears showing he is not dead.
Didn't you say you would help me with that page Scottie?--Yeshwa1 10:57, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with this discussion? --Scottie theNerd 13:22, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Bottom line is, that it's hard to tell what unit these guys are from; I'm pretty sure that the only guy that's consistently Australian is Rook, and he got greased. The only thing we can tell for certain is that two or three of the guys we run into throughout the course of the entire game are Australians (from the flags on their helmets, armor, or shoulders), as no mention is ever made of anyone's specific unit affiliation. The tag on the article says it best: "does not appear in Call of Duty." MarinesNeverDie 11:17, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Australia are one of the best special forces in the world, whether these players are from the 2nd Commando Regiment or the SASR! TF141-Aussie 01:39, January 21, 2010 (UTC)TF141-Aussie
- Comment - Just because they are a good special forces group doesn't mean they should get an article on the wiki. The wiki covers things that are found or referenced in Call of Duty. The SASR are not. So, they should not have an article. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 01:46, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Being "one of the best special forces group" isn't a criteria for inclusion in CODwiki. It certainly is for Wikipedia, but CODwiki isn't Wikipedia. CODwiki documents all things related to COD, and there is no solid evidence that the SASR are in COD. When debating deletion, please refer to policy rather than your own personal opinion about the subject matter. --Scottie theNerd 10:34, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
This has been overlooked for some time. There are two articles for the same thing. The other article is called 9x19 Parabellum.
Support as nominator
Support - Either delete because of dup or redirect. --I Ross I 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Support only referenced in one line in COD5.
Well, it was already merged, but I'd like to say that they also appear multiple times in the Finest Hour Russian campaign. So, they aren't only seen a few times in World at War. Anywho, even if they were only mentioned once or twice, we should still have an article on them. Sgt. ChiafriendRifleman 22:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't need this article. There is a perfectly good article on him on wikipedia.
Support as nominator
Oppose - He does the voice in CoD:WaW, and
the article here is perfectly fine, no reason to delete. --I Ross I 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad, the article is in pretty bad shape, but if it were fixed and some info added, I think it would be pretty good. --I Ross I 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Support I would agree that the article should be deleted. It does not have enough info, to even really be classified as a stub. It has nothing on it. Attack Rhino 23:26, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
Support It's a dead article that shows no signs of getting any better. WouldYouKindly 02:01, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Uh...why does this thing still exist? We brought this up how long ago? And everyone knows how badly the page sucks. Can someone get rid of it already?
- Comment - right on that, getting an admin… Attack Rhino 08:03, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - this article is relevant to COD, it just needs some fixing up--Bigm2793 12:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - (To me) there is nothing to fix up, as there is nothing on the page. It does not have anything in it, and I assume that it never really will. All it says is that Sutherland voices Roebuck, it would be better to just say that in Roebucks page, instead of wasting space and slowing down everything. Attack Rhino 22:33, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Support Totally. just an external link to his wiki page would suffice he himself has nothing to do with the game other than loaning a voice. We don't have pages on Kevin McKidd Billy Murray or any other voice actors Timmyctc 20:30, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
This category and both of its subcategories (Modern Warfare 2 Characters and Modern Warfare 2 Weapons) are not used by any articles. They are redundant and break the scheme addressing all products by their full title, such as Category:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. FarmerBob12 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Support This category is useless and makes things confusing ElFuser 19:07, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
If Dr.Rictofen really is Edward I don't think we shold have this article.
Mad Catz Edit
I don't really understand why there is an article on this. This is more like an advertisement for Mad Catz. Just because they make accessories related to the game doesn't mean they deserve an article. --I Ross I 22:34, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Article is useless, almost no actual COD-related info on it, and what little there it is already on the MW2 page. WouldYouKindly 02:30, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I think the atrocious grammar on the article (all two sentences of it) is another good reason to get rid of it ("a mice"? WTF?) WouldYouKindly 20:03, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Yeah, I don't see why we need this article. --CallofDuty4 16:49, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
Support - I can see the how this article might be good for describing the MW2 accessories made by them, but at this point its just useless. Darkman 4 20:30, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
Deleted - as of 10:46, January 31, 2010 (UTC)..
This article is poorly formatted, is full of bad spelling and grammar, and for the most part already exists (in a much better form) on Call of Duty series timeline. What little separate information it does include can be merged onto this article.
Support- It was already deleted once, I have no idea who remade it, but he didn't bother to improve it. WouldYouKindly 22:36, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to keep this short. The article in question is about a helicopter that isn't even in any of the COD games (it even says so in the article). I'm not even sure what it's doing here in the first place. Not to mention it's only three sentences long and has very little relevant information to the helicopter itself anyway.
Support - As nominator. WouldYouKindly 00:31, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Challenge Completion Guide: Tips & StrategiesEdit
Appears to be an orphan page, with little relevance.
Another orphan article I've encountered, I'm not sure of the relevance of this either. Apologies if you could easier speedy them as admins, I'm not too good with the speedy policy of this Wiki Thanks, Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 19:36, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - It's a map that's been confirmed for Modern Warfare 2. It will of course be edited again with more information next week, so leave it be for now. Bovell Talk | Contrib. 23:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Alright, cool, I was a little unsure whether it was correct, or something based on speculation, but it's confirmed, sorry for the nuisance. Thanks, Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 23:25, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
EMP Killstreak Modern Warfare 2 Edit
It's entirely from a 1st person view, all it does is describe a YouTube video, sharing their thoughts of speculation, it's titled wrong, poorly formatted, and generally doesn't make sense if you saw it / skimmed it / read it.
Support - my first reaction was: "what?" I think it sums up the fact that it is not needed, per what Aky said. Attack Rhino 08:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
How to Find the Best Sniper Spot and Use it to Your Advantage Edit
This article's in terrible shape, it has terrible formatting and spelling/grammar/punctuation, and just does not seem like an appropriate article to begin with. Plus, look at the title. I think this page should be taken down, but of course that could just be my opinion.
Support - I was just reading it and the AoD popped up when I refreshed the page. I agree, it is poorly written and formatted. Seems more fitted for someones's user page. Chief z 04:28, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Support - It's a badly made page and therefore should be deleted.--Poketape 04:33, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Duplicate Single Player levels Edit
I have noticed two different duplicate Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 single player levels - S.S.D.D. vs. S.S.D.D. S.S.D.D. is the better of the two. And Team Player vs. Team Player (level). Those two are pretty much equal in quality. Just doing this to bring these to attention.
- P.S. You put your signature twice, Saint. -- Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk 16:07, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
- Taken care of. And yeah, that happens some times when I accidentally type four tildes instead of five. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M)
What exactly does this have to do with Call of Duty? It's basically just a grainy picture and an explanation on how there's nothing on the page.
Ah, someone put that in there since I posted this nomination. Okay then.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 voice actorsEdit
It's redundant. Voice actors are listed on the MW2 article and their respective character pages.
Support - As nominator Chief z 08:56, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
Another redundancy. We already have an article about the vehicle; it's the Stryker. It should be merged or deleted.
Support - As nominator Chief z 09:43, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, so i just updae that article. And maybe can do a shortcut M1126 to Stryker?
Active Clans Edit
I'm sorry, but this feels like more of a "belongs in the Forums, rather" type of article. Plus, it's incredibly short, and has some 1st person message up at the top.
I deleted the first person message, and the list will grow. It's partially useful, because some people use the clan tag feature just to add some random stuff in front of their gamertag, instead of representing their clan. Sorry if this wasn't where I was supposed to disagree.
Disagree EightOhEight 04:53, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
'"Support"' i-intelligence-i 08:21, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with CoD and makes no sense.
Support - As nominator. Chief z 14:39, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Uh... what? Supercancer 21:46, December 4, 2009 (UTC) nomination already closed
Closed - Article qualified for speedy deletion and was deleted last night.--WouldYouKindly 21:50, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the "classic" version really deserves its own page. It's just a DLC port of CoD 1. Reflex edition probably deserves its own page, but, meh...this is just a clone of the same game on the internet, basically. It would be like making a page for the Mac ports of Call of Duty.
I think it should stay because It is a call of duty game —Unsigned comment was added by Pantherrfan09
Support - This page could easily be merged with the original Call of Duty page, unless it contains something incredibly unique. --Ant423 22:33, December 19, 2009 (UTC)Ant423
Extremely unnecessary, and very short.
Also unnecessary, probably by the same editor. These articles would be better in a compilation of characters with no role.
Oppose - My argument as editor is that the name Macey is not random, that he and Keating always appear in the level S.S.D.D and are always playing basketball, without one, the other is useless. The article may or may not be better than it is now if you give it a chance. But Macey is always going to be in the game programmed to that one place alongside Keating no matter what. Lotsi 02:44, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with the above user, Macey is a unique character model, and he is notable for being one of the basketball guys so I don't mind if this article stays. --Ant423 03:42, December 18, 2009 (UTC)Ant423
Support - Just because he appears every time in the level does not mean he does anything notable. Fairly sure this qualifies for speedy deletion, actually, but I'll leave it up for discussion. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 18:38, December 19, 2009 (UTC) Oppose So is Morgan, Sandler and Vaughan they all their own pages so why not Macey or Keating especially as these two are names of Infinty Ward staff.AdvancedRookie 16:16, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Sandler and Vaughan actually do something important to the game. Morgan shouldn't have his page, nor should all those TF141 characters that do nothing but appear in the level. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 19:50, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - We are here to cover the whole Call of Duty series; every character and aspect of it. Per Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity and COD:CR, we'll document him, O'Bryant, Peas, Henderson, Dawkins, Fahey, and anyone else with a static name. Server space is never an issue, and there isn't a single downside to documenting him. It's like Halopedia with L. P. B. and L. Jenkins. They are official characters inside the universe that we are trying to create an immense encyclopedia on. We have no choice but to document him. Sgt. ChiafriendRifleman 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - He is a major enough character, he always appears with the same appearance in two missions, S.S.D.D. and Of Their Own Accord. I strongly agree with User:Chiafriend12. CoD addict 03:52, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
George Washington (In universe) Edit
So there are some portraits of him in that one house in Exodus. Does he really deserve a page?
STRONG FREAKIN' SUPPORT A very useless article. Peter Griffen Boy 21:52, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
Support19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Totally pointless, no question about it. --Gmanington MCCCXLII 20:56, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
Erwin Rommel Edit
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 - Pointless19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. 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? Sgt. ChiafriendRifleman 21:42, December 23, 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 weren'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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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- Having looked around, I realize that this page has no relevance to the game series itself. http://users.telenet.be/22nd_SAS/images/Rank%20sign%20big/lance_cor.jpg Cpl. Morgan, RRoS 21:23, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per above.22:05, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Category:Der riese glitchesEdit
Unnecessary category, nothing is there. Doc.Richtofen 21:37, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
- Deleted - unnecessary page. 22:05, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
It's irrelevant to Call of Duty, but it's well written so let's see what the community thinks. (I understand why someone would put it on).
Support as nominator.10:40, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Support - No relevance to Call of Duty or CODWiki --Scottie theNerd 10:49, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Support- As far as I can see, this i just lifted straight from Wikipedia. It also has no relevance to CoD, as Scottie said. Corporal Morgan, RRoS 11:00, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Sgt. Yuri Gargarin Edit
Before I begin, let me just say that I haven't played CoD2 before. But, chances are, if he was a major character, he would have already had a page. And, this page has his rank in the name. Big no-no, a sign that the editor that made it isn't that experienced. Also,the page is in general bad shape.
Support - as nominator. Also, if this doesn't pass, can someone at least move the page to the appropriate name? But wait until the voting is done. -- Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk 17:46, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Per All19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
There are also oranges. And dinner plates. And things that you shoot at, and knife. This does not deserve an article, but I put it up for discussion anyway.
Support - It's just an interactive object. No point of a page really.19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
As per reasoning with Reznov's Machete.You don't even really see the weapon properly -- it could just be a regular knife, and its an unusable weapon anyway.
Siege of the White HouseEdit
The article's content is already covered in the Battle of Washington, D.C. page, which is better written anyway.
Support - As nominator. Hk37 21:13, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I agree, it's redundant. Ant423 02:47, February 3, 2010 (UTC)Ant423
Support - The information is better covered in the article, as the events at the White House are part of a more defined event. --Scottie theNerd 06:33, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Unnecessary.13:35, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - at 13:47, February 3, 2010 (UTC).
Call Of Duty FilmEdit
Probably not true and is irrelevant until we see some solid evidence.
Support- As nominator.AdvancedRookie 16:20, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Captain Price's M1911Edit
Is this article REALLY necessary? Just because it's a gun used by Price and Soap doesn't mean that it's worth making a full article about. It's pretty well written, but it might be better merged into a subsection of the M1911 article instead. I just don't think it merits a full article any more than something like "Ghost's ACR" or "Foley's SCAR-H".
Support As nominator--WouldYouKindly 13:55, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Support Merger - Agreed. I would not like to see the info go to waste, though.14:01, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'd support this, but I think we need a solid grounding in policy to make a proper call. As Price's weapon is slightly more significant than any other weapon in the game, one could argue that it warrants its own article based on some interpretations of Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. I personally believe the information is better placed in the character and mission articles and not the M1911 page; save only for a minor reference and not an entire section. --Scottie theNerd 05:59, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I agree with you Scottie, that's the main reason I suggested a merge and not a total deletion.--WouldYouKindly 06:11, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I do not fully agree about deleting this (i made this article) but merging it with the m1911 seems to be a good idea, and just for the record, its more important than Ghost ACR or Floey SCAR-h (I meant no argueing,peace)Resnov1997 10:32, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - Darkman deleted it.10:53, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
Assassination of General ShepherdEdit
There's no reason to keep this page. It's covered on lots of other articles. Sgt. S.S. 18:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Support - It's a wordy version of Just Like Old Times and Endgame. We've been seeing a few of these offshoot "summary" articles, and I find that they're more creative writing pieces than encyclopedic articles. --Scottie theNerd 06:13, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
Deleted - Pointless page. Deleted as of 10:53, February 6, 2010 (UTC).
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 - 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)
Papa Six was only there callsign in the E3 demo. The final version uses Bravo Six.(super-noob)February 23, 2010
This page is not remotely accurate in regards to our blocking policy. Besides, I feel that having a strict policy in regards to blocking will handicap the admin's ability to effectively deal with vandals and the like.
Support as nominator. Darkman 4 19:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Support --Cpl. Callofduty4 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment/Opposed Its not like its followed anyway. Looking back at how blocks are dealed with on this wiki since I wrote that more than a year ago blocks are stricter than what the policy dictates, not the other way around. Saying that you guys should re do it, not delete it, so admins have a policy to follow, not do whatever the hell they feel like to win an argument against a non authority, which Ive seen done several times, with Admins not acting like admins but acting like children when they block ErrettungRetiredMod
Support - this was never approved by the community but was instead instituted by another user as their own personal opinion. Most admins prefer to block on a case by case basis--Bigm2793 19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- It was actually, you me and Chia decided we needed one and I wrote the basis and you guys were spouse to revise it as time went on. Chia approved it, and it was on a working basis, you were spouse to be re working it. But Ofc this never happened. It was after we got complaints that people were getting blocked because their opinions were not shared and it was considered vandalism when it wasn't. Its completely untrue to say it wasn't approved because it was. And you know it was too. Blocking on a case by case basis is a flawed policy, as admins don't always use good judgement and in the heat of the moment and block when there was no clear reason to block. And this wiki hasn't shown that Admins can block with good judgement. Blocks on this wiki make new users feel uncomfortable, that they cant say what they think should be included because a person with power doesn't agree. That's the sad truth, and a blocking policy will keep admins in check to prevent new users from being alienated. ErrettungRetiredMod
- I love I've still got a bit of influence left. Bigm wont reply because he didn't know I was going to come back and show that you were one of the people who thought we needed one. And than when I wrote it instead of you, you freaked. You tried to get it deleted but I come back and completely stop it. I love to still have influence. And try to follow what you said in the first place not change it a year later. Afk for awhile again. ErrettungRetiredMod
Support - ^ Agreed, people should be Blocked/Suspended case by-case. User:Braden 0.0 12:08 January 16, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Same as above. Smuff 21:30, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Question/Support - He has nothing to do with Call of Duty, and should I erase that his gun is a Walter?