Call of Duty Wiki:Articles for Deletion/Archive 2

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance.

Articles for Deletion[]

User:Staff Sergeant Jack Jackson[]

Support This article was voted for deletion by the user, as you can see in the edits, so I think this user wants to be removed. We also should remove the talk page. M/Sgt. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 17:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Pablo Levi-Govanni[]

Support This article was voted for deletion by the user, as you can see in the edits, so I think this user wants to be removed. We also should remove the talk page. M/Sgt. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 17:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Horse[]

Support as nom. A talk page without an article. This article was already deleted, but the talk page still exists. M/Sgt. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Tin roof[]

Support as nom. A nonsense page that was requested for deletion by Darkman 4 long ago. M/Sgt. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Call of Duty 6[]

- - Support as nom. A talk page without an article. And Call of Duty 6 is already confirmed as being Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Private Donatello Flash[]

Support as nom. This page doesn't really make much sense, but if anyone can clean it up/tell me what it is supposed to mean, then we can keep it... Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Call of Duty 6 Future Warfare[]

Call of Duty 6 has already been announced as being Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

Support as nom-- Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

CoD6[]

See above.

Support as nom-- Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

I redirected this to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

Lt.JohnWelch[]

This was previously deleted, and was restored so that the template would not be ruined. I copied the content to Template:Infobox Soldier, so this can freely be deleted now. All categories were previously pointing to the Template:Infobox Soldier, so deleting this will also have no effect. Any questions just post here. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Support as nom-- Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Call of Duty Wiki:Ranks[]

Simple. Not used and has been proven not to work, not only on this wiki but also on Halopedia, they just do not admit it.--Bigm279320:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Support as nom--Bigm279320:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Yes, this idea can be a bad one, but it is not advertised on the main page, like Halopedia. Most users will not notice, and although I do not feel any attachment to it, I think it is a cool feature that should be kept among the most active users. Again, no attachment, but I kinda like the idea as long as only a "few" people know about it. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Whats the point if only a few people know about it? Also don't make a new archive every time u archive. Add it to the existing archive unless there are like 100 in there already, then make a new one.--Bigm279320:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I thought new archives had to be made. Anyway, I guess that this isn't really necessary, but I think it's kinda cool to update.... Well, I think I'll put my vote as neutral, but I don't really have any reasons for keeping it, so my vote should carry very little weight. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Oppose I agree with Creepydude, if there isn't anyway to find the article then how are people supposed to use it? Also having these types of articles/things are what keeps the community going, it can give them something to try to achieve and aim for. Thus creating edits throughout the wiki, people are proud to say that they have reached a certain amount of edits and like to show that pride off. I Ross I

Also, I do feel that the page does need some work done to it, perhaps add some pictures, more ranks, change required amount of edits for each rank, etc. Here's another edit award page found at halowiki.net (not many people use it either lol). I Ross I

I think in the end, what would be a better idea is something like that example on halowiki.net. Integrate badges that can only be added by SYSOPs that we can put on user pages or something. I am really caught inbetween whether we should keep this or not. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

RFD closed; nomination failed. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Sawed-off double-barreled shotgun with grip[]

Article is unnecessary, since we have this article: Sawed-Off Double Barreled Shotgun With Grip. We should also figure out how to do this. I could put a {{main|Sawed-Off Double Barreled Shotgun w/Grip}} on the Double-Barreled Shotgun page and put something like "Some game modes have a Sawed-Off Double Barreled Shotgun w/Grip, an impossible feat in multiplayer." Something like that. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Support because of my above reasons. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Support - Per Creepy. Col. I Ross I ^Talk 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

M1 Garand Grenade Launcher[]

First off, the title is wrong, it is a rifle grenade. Second of all, we don't need a page just for the weapon's 'nade launcher. Third, the info is useless and poorly structured. Fourth, we can put this info at Rifle Grenade. 'Nuff said. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here!

Support because of my above reasons. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 05:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Multiple problems and won't be more than a stub article. Col. I Ross I ^Talk 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

World War III[]

Never occurred in real life or ingame. The fact that *some* people consider the cold war to be WW3 is irrelevant as it is not a majorly accepted fact among the historical community. --Bigm279320:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - as nominator--Bigm279320:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral leaning towards support - Well, the article does have some useful content, but mostly I would consider it unnecessary. I think that having a "Some players think..." would be a good idea, but on the other hand Call of Duty 4 was not a "World War", so it looks like being moot. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 20:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - ...Yeah... The war in CoD4 was nowhere near being a third World War. World War II had something around 80% of the countries in the world participating. That war had, what, five different countries total? Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 07:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Haha who made this article? Since it never happened we shouldn't have an article about it. Col. I Ross I ^Talk 01:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Support --Darth tom (talk)

Closed, AFD successful.--Bigm2793 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Call of Duty Wiki:Ranks[]

System is bad to start. There isn't really much point in having a rank system if everything is manual. Next, although we haven't really seen any useless people making edits just for edit count, it is certainly plausible. I think we need to remove this as a general cleanup. Besides, there is a bucketload of new stuff to-do, and something that will be introduced to the community once the list is nearing it's completion. This is one of the first steps to beginning the new wiki. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support as per nomination. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support as per the fact I raised this issue, and think the concept of this is really nothing more than garbage. Joey - Talk^Contribs 05:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

More senior members have their votes weighed more? Since I've been here for almost two years, could I have a huge impact on this process if I were to vote with an oppose? COD:AEAE applies to all situations.

I vote neutral. It's a recreational thing, but it doesn't really serve a purpose. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 07:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point, kind of goes with "unite the community", it's removed. Joey - Talk^Contribs 08:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I've been opposed to having the ranks thing since its commission and have only started using my "rank". I think they are useless and do not encourage users to make more edits due to the fact that there is not incentive for doing so, for example, being able to apply for adminship when you reach sergeant.--Bigm279310:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Number one and most important reason - I wouldn't be able to call myself a Major. =) Anyway, I don't get what the big deal is about it, no one is applying for adminship when the reach Sergeant maybe when they reach Colonel they should consider it. It may be demoralizing in a small way but its all good fun. Besides, its not like anyone is boasting around that they have this high rank and are more important than other users. Col. I Ross I ^Talk

I think that even though I am playing with it (adding to my sig and stuff), it should go. I have seen users come and, although wanting to use the system, not understanding it and being not only dissapointed by the "manual" system. Ross, you can still be a major, but the simple fact is that it is a really bad system. I think new users should be introduced to helpful ways they can help, rather than just playing with these "ranks". There is no point in having a system as bad as this one in the first place. Chia, I thought it was you who said that the ranking system destroys wikis such as halopedia. I think you were the one who actually got me thinking about the negative impacts. I really can't see any advantage in keeping it as even with the plus factors of ranks, they are kinda outweighed because the system is so bad. If we were to have a rank system at all, it would have to be fairly "automatic", sleek, and better than our current one. I think the first step is getting rid of this thing that we have. Creepydude ^Sniper Say Some'at Here! 05:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree as usual. =) I don't see to many users disappointed by the system. By manual, are you referring to the possibility of a low rank they receive once they add their name and their edit count? If so, you have to start somewhere. And if there is a replacement (which I doubt there would be once this is deleted), what type of new system are we talking about Creepy? If you could possibly explain more about a replacement, I might be more swayed into trying a "sleek", "automatic" one.

Col. I Ross I ^Talk 03:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Darth tom when he said that Wikia isn't a social networking site on the topic of COD:R becoming more usergroup based. Though, I have said that point systems ruin wikis.

Though, on a more positive note, if this system is bad, why don't we try to fix it? It's rather hypocritical to kill something off without trying to fix it.

Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 06:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Of course. --Darth tom (talk)

Closed, AFD successful.--Bigm2793 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Civilians[]

I don't see the point of the article. If anything, this should be on the trivia section for The Coup and Hunted; that's what most of the info on this page comes from. :/ Darkman 4 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Iran[]

What does this have to do with Call of Duty? I know one of the maps in CoD4 shows that you're in Iran, but I don't see why a page dedicated to it is needed. Darkman 4 08:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ken Lally[]

I'm sorry but what exactly is the purpose of this? This is the only article on the wiki about a member of a game's cast. It's great to know this guy, but does he really need his own page? Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Lally isn't the only cast member to have an article. There's also Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman, to list a few. Though, I don't think a cast member of a character in a game that is yet to come out should have an article yet. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, it's a vague relation to the series. What else is to be said other than the fact that the person was a voice actor? At least with a page like George S. Patton, he is mentioned in game and is the "hidden protagonist" of many of the battles. If people want to know about the voice actors, we can provide a link to Wikipedia. I mean, look at those articles, they're practically one sentence.

Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Noob[]

support - This slang term isn't particular to CoD but to all online games and its pointless to have its own article about it. Perhaps make an article about the terms used in CoD online play but don't I strongly disagree with giving slang words their own articles. Col. I Ross I ^Talk 21:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - But if this slang term isn't particular to CoD what about all the other gaming terms like Gib or Head shot etc. User:Cod1 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I would rather have it that all the game term pages be condensed into one. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

M85[]

This machine gun isn't found in any of the call of duty games,not even Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Nintendo DS). the machine gun in the nintendo DS version is the M2 Browning machine gun. cod1 4:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support as nominator. cod1 4:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Not found in-game, no point for having an article about it. Col. I Ross I ^Talk 04:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'll get rid of it. Darkman 4 04:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This would have been a candidate for speedy deletion, not a VfD. We don't need to have a discussion just to delete something that is unrelated to our wiki's topic. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 02:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Boonie Hat[]

Support - What is the point of this page? All it does is tell you that Price wears one in CoD4. Wooptie-fucking-do. Darkman 4 23:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I also think the page should be deleted, it's useless. Cod1 1:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Zach Hanks[]

I hate to request that two voice actor pages be deleted, but this is a bit different. There was no real content on the page to begin with, as it was created by a spammer. Even if the page was to be expanded, it wouldn't have much on the guy anyway. Right now, it's just a filler page. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support as nominator.

Got rid of it. Bovell was right on the mark. Darkman 4 01:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mile High Club Achievement[]

I don't think that an achievement needs its own page. The page is the only one of its category as well. We can summarize the content and place it into Mile High Club, but the page is unnecessary. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support - Don't see a need for this page as well. All info should be merged into the regular "Mile High Club" page. Darkman 4 01:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

.[]

the reason why  i put the Panzerbüchse 38 and 39 because there the same as the ptrs-41 except it has more stopping power,and its only used in multiplayer by the German side. —Unsigned comment was added by Cod1337 (talk · contribs).

What are you talking about? There are no PzB 38 or 39s in WaW. Not even the game files reference them. I'm deleting them. Darkman 4 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Imperial Zombies[]

Please delete this page for now, it has little information (8 words) and will not be added to until Shi No Numa is released. It serves no purpose except as a spam page.

Callofduty4 15:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made it a redirect to Nazi Zombies. Darkman 4 02:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, how do I redirect? could you tell me how to? Please on my talk page? THANKS

StG-45[]

Support as Nominator - This weapon has never been in a CoD game. Darkman 4 02:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It actually qualifies for speedy deletion, not a VfD. Deleted. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Kiefer Sutherland[]

Only one sentence out of the article even pertains to Call of Duty. Good actor, just doesn't quite deserve his own page on our wiki in my opinion. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - while it is not significant to the Call of Duty series, it still plays a part and we should provide as much information as possible relating to Call of Duty--Bigm2793 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - Doesn't deserve a page. We don't really need to know his bibliography, just the part that's related to CoD. Voice actors need to be on the character's page as trivia or something, not as a page on this wikia.CirChris 00:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Gary Oldman[]

Seems as if I'm purging the voice-actor articles, but they really need to go. Yet again, only one sentence mentioning Call of Duty: World at War. It's great to know the background of the actors, but even expansion to the article can't add much to what little there is. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - while it is not significant to the Call of Duty series, it still plays a part and we should provide as much information as possible relating to Call of Duty--Bigm2793 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - Same reasons as the other one. CirChris 00:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Amaze Entertainment[]

Support as nominator. This page serves no purpose, it only has 1 line of information. Callofduty4 18:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - It may be a major stub, but that's the point of the stub template. They were the makers of the one of the Call of Duty games, so they get documented. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin[]

Support as nominator. Vladimir putin has nothing to do with the call of duty series, he did do a fake review of call of duty 4 but I don't think there should be an article for him.

Cod1 16:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - He's not in any of the games, nor is he even mentioned in any of the games. He's just unrelated. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Why is he even here? We're not doing a biography of the world's leaders.CirChris 00:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)