Call of Duty Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Call of Duty Wiki
Shortcut:
COD:AFD
Archives
  1. 19 April 2008 - 10 December 2008
  2. 10 December 2008 - 20 June 2009
  3. 20 June 2009 -
(Listed by closing date.)

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 "{{deletion}}" to the top of the respective article, and make a subsection on this page about it.

If the article qualifies for speedy deletion, use "{{sdelete|reason}}" instead, and don't make a subsection here. An administrator will find it and take care of it.

Articles for Deletion

5.7x28mm

Pictogram voting support Support 1
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 2


Reason- No point. This article tells us nothing except what ammunition the P90 uses. In my opinion, this article is actually spam.

Callofduty4 | What you after? 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose While it doesn't tell us anything more than what ammo the P90 uses, deleting it will do little good. If it is deleted, somebody will remake it with the same amount of minimal detail. We should keep it and let users slowly expand on it. Darkman 4 13:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It may be really short now, but many articles start out that way. Just wait for someone to come along and add more content to it. Master SergeantSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Browning .30 cal

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support as nominator. This article already exists. It should be deleted, or merged with M1919 Callofduty4 | What you after? 09:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Support multiple pages for the same thing is messed up. File:1911A1iwi.png Akyoyo Talk 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

9x19mm

Pictogram voting support Support 3
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


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  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png 

Support - Either delete because of dup or redirect. --I Ross I 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Multiple pages for the same thing is messed up. File:1911A1iwi.png Akyoyo Talk 22:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Katushya rocket

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


There article already exists. It should be deleted, or merged with Katyusha rocket launcher. General General Cod1 Talk

Support as nominator General General Cod1 Talk

Support only referenced in one line in COD5.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png 

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. Master SergeantSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 22:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kiefer Sutherland

Pictogram voting support Support 5
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 2


We don't need this article. There is a perfectly good article on him on wikipedia.

Support as nominator  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png 

Opposed , Famous actor voicing a role in a Call of Duty game, its fine ErrettungRetiredMod

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 The article is in terrible shape, we could just link to Wikipedia, and we don't need an article on him in the first place. File:1911A1iwi.png Akyoyo Talk 22:11, 10 August 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)

Support One of my favorite actors, but there's no need for an article on him, and the article is in terrible shape. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 02:33, 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)

Category:Modern Warfare 2

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)

Call of Duty Wiki: Blocking Policy

Pictogram voting support Support 4
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 1


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 actully, 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 wasnt. Its completley untrue to say it wasnt approved because it was. And you know it was too. Blociking 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 doesnt agree. Thats 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 didnt 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 deleated but I come back and completly 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 - It's about time this got wrapped up. Blocks should be case-by-case. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  14:58, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Edward (Doctor's assistant)

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


If Dr.Rictofen really is Edward I don't think we shold have this article.

Support as nominator. --General General Cod1 Talk 1:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm surprised no one did that after the merge. File:100px-US Army E-9 SGM.png SgM. Akyoyo Talk

Mad Catz

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)

Pictogram voting support Support 5
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - As Nom, per reasons above. Colonel Col. I Ross I Talk 22:34, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense, as per reasons above. ----  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk 02:21, September 8, 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)

World Timeline

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


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 - As nominator. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 22:35, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

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)

Merge and redirect - Per above. Master SergeantSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 23:44, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Mi-12

Pictogram voting support Support 1
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


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)

It qualifies for speedy deletion. I'll go ahead and delete it. Master SergeantSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 00:46, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Challenge Completion Guide: Tips & Strategies

Appears to be an orphan page, with little relevance.

Support - As nominator. Thanks, Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 19:30, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Karachi

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. Click for a list of other admins 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

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.

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - as nominator. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  05:54, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

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)

Comment - ...Aky? I've never heard anyone call me that before... --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  04:18, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

How to Find the Best Sniper Spot and Use it to Your Advantage

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.

Pictogram voting support Support 3
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - as nominator. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  04:21, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - One more thing - it has millions of those RTE little nuisances in the text (&nbsp). --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  04:23, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - Merge information and subsequently delete S.S.D.D and Team Player (level). SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 01:16, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm pretty sure that qualifies for speedy deletion, actually. Go forth, with the super admin powers, and take 'em down. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  16:06, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

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)

Explosive tip crossbow

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.

Pictogram voting support Support 1
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 1


Support - as nominator. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  21:48, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - It is a weapon in a Call of Duty game, so keep it. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 22:01, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Ah, someone put that in there since I posted this nomination. Okay then.

Voting Closed, article is relevant to Wiki --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  02:34, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 voice actors

It's redundant. Voice actors are listed on the MW2 article and their respective character pages.

Pictogram voting support Support 1
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - As nominator Chief z 08:56, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

M1126

Another redundancy. We already have an article about the vehicle; it's the Stryker. It should be merged or deleted.

Pictogram voting support Support 1
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


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?

Advertisement