Call of Duty Wiki:Articles for Deletion/Archive 4

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

Cherubini's

This is an extremly minor thing, but on the other hand the Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity policy says we should include it.

Support	2
Neutral	1
Oppose	0

Neutral - As nominator.     13:35, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Far too many restaurants in MW2 to make articles for each one. If this one stays, then we need articles on Burger Town, Nate's, etc. Perhaps we should make an article called "restaurants" or somethingAnt423 14:17, February 3, 2010 (UTC)Ant423

Comment - Technically, an article on each restaurant is allowed under Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. I'm withholding my vote, as I am more interesting in amending Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity than deleting or creating articles based on varied interpretations. --Scottie theNerd 06:11, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If its a minor thing delete it and put it in a article with things like that like a restaurant in one with burger town and nates and the rest.

Support - There is an article called List of Buisnesses in Wolverines! and Cherubini's is included in there. DevilWarrior11208:27, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sex Dolls

A little argument has sprung up about this article. Some see it as just an irrelevant piece of scenery, others see it as deserving under Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. I'll let the community decide. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 21:55, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support	6
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

Support - It is never mentioned and as you said it is only a bit of scenery. We don't have articles on trees, bushes or walls do we?     22:23, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I suppose this is my argument. I guess it was wrong of me to post up the delete tag without conferring, since Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity does make it confusing. But I'll say what I said before. It's interactive scenery. We don't have articles on glass that can be broken or the boxes on Highrise that can be knifed, revealing snacks. The fact that we just deleted George Washington's page because he only appeared in a picture is all the more reason to get rid of this page. Icepacks 23:25, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Also note that Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity says nothing about scenery. Icepacks 01:40, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Because I own one that I dress up and put in my back seat when I go to parties; sex dolls are people, too. -- Echo Four Delta 03:41, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - No offense, but I'm not sure I understand that reasoning.. Icepacks 11:56, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Oops, that was a few days ago, and I think I was drunk when I made that edit, my bad guys, I fully support a campaign against sex doll articles on the CoD Wiki. -- Echo Four Delta 01:39, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I really don't care any more but I just thought it was a good page because it was an easter egg. If you look around there's a lot of easter eggs on this wiki. That's all I have to say but I don't care if it is deleted. -- Batman Rider 04:07, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Support - I erased a part that said "They are in a stance of sex" mainly because it is completely unnecessary, and i beg to differ. Also, i dont think this should be on this wikia, but Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity makes it....... odd and confusing. 7th Body 03:46, February 9, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Support - Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity needs a major rewrite. I don't think this is what the policy meant. Slowrider7 00:09, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support I don't think Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity had every object in the environment in mind. Otherwise we'd just have a bunch of stupid and useless articles. I support stuff that actually matters following Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, but this is pretty ridiculous--WouldYouKindly 00:22, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well, we do currently have a lot of useless and barely-relevant articles that have to be kept under Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. --Scottie theNerd 01:30, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above arguments. And Scottie, does that mean you oppose? Imrlybord7 07:56, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm abstaining from this vote. The comment was in reference to Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity rather than this AfD. --Scottie theNerd 12:37, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support -Per all, it's a vulgar piece of scenery. ^{T C E B} 02:48, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Smuff, you can post it in the Improvement Drive, or like Scottie said, the War Room. Either way, deleting it wont help. People will make pages about the stickers on the Humvees and stuff. Slowrider7 08:44, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Technically it is a War Room-only discussion, as the Improvement Drive page is meant for articles. Policy pages aren't articles. --Scottie theNerd 09:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Ok, thanks for the help, and the editing tips, if I ever nominate something again I'll know what to look for! Smuff 12:06, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Equivalent

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 - Agreed. What exactly is a weapon equivalent? I don't see how the PTRS-41 is identical to the Barrett .50cal. Sgt. S.S. 17:38, 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)

Axis Player Modification

Honestly, this might even qualify for speedy deletion. We do not have articles on mods. It is from the wiki's earlier days, probably before policies were well defined and when the wiki had very few regular contributors. Imrlybord7 02:16, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. Imrlybord7 02:16, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Seconded. Icepacks 02:24, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Thirded. We don't need mods on stuff, that's what speciality forums are for. Cpl. Wilding 02:27, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Deleted. Per current policy. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 22:14, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

3rd Person Cage match

Support 1

NeutralPending 0

Opposed 0

This has been made under 3rd Person Cage Match and should at least be merged or deletedEvilGRAHAM 0 23:03, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support As nominatorEvilGRAHAM 0 23:03, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article doesn't exist. --Scottie theNerd 00:00, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I already deleted it. Duplicate pages qualify for speedy deletion. Sorry, I probably should have posted an alert here. Imrlybord7 01:12, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the infoEvilGRAHAM 0 23:41, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Banana Magazine

Support	6
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support/Comment as nominator. The entire idea that there is an article dedicated to "banana magazines" is ludicrous. That's not even the correct terminology. Banana magazines, such as they are, are a colloquialism referring to the magazines used by AK-series/style firearms. The correct nomenclature for such is "box magazine", but that too opens the issue of having an article for something that's never mentioned in game. If we do that, then we need articles for drum magazines, en-bloc clips, tubular magazines, and pan magazines as well. There's gotta be a line somewhere. And I'll blatantly say it right here, since it's just as good a place as any: if you're too stupid to know the real name for something, don't try to BS your way through it, because another idiot will see it and think it's right (banana mags lol). -- Griever0311 01:23, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Concurred with Griever on the use of incorrect terminology. Also, this article brings another challenge to the Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity condundrum, as presented here. As Griever said, technically these real-life terms don't feature in the game, and we're just putting our own knowledge into the wiki to the effect of putting words into someone else's mouth. Unless we reform Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity -- and urgently -- we'll get lots of articles on weapon components. —Unsigned comment was added by Scottie theNerd

Support - Sigh. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 01:44, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - even with the Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity conundrum it is not mentioned in games it is just an magazine shape, so if we have to make this an article, that means we make one for every shape in the game, also there is not very much info. EvilGRAHAM 0 23:46, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Sad sad sadLt. Col. Gen.Cain^{T C E} 23:57, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support ;-) Imrlybord7 04:04, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Radiation Zones

Very minor thing, radiation zones make only five major appearances - twice in Call of Duty 4, three times in Modern Warfare 2. While Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity says we should keep it, it's still a very minor article. Sgt. S.S. 21:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator. Sgt. S.S. 21:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The information presented is significant. --Scottie theNerd 02:04, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Certantly a part of the game. You can die from it, others can die from it, and i know a gitch that can be done with it in Wasteland. I think it deserves an article. We can always make it stub, though. 7th Body 22:39, February 23, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Oppose - It's not like any of those Sex Doll articles, it's actually important to the game in the fact it can kill you, it has a place on the wiki. Just add the stub template. Smuff 10:15, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This article should stay in the wiki. It is actually and important boundary of most maps, and the page has some good info on it. Kidcorp 17:37, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity

Before you come to my house with pitchforks and torches, let me explain why. Look at the above articles. Many are articles which are covered by a very vague article which we have to put up with, which in turn allows these articiles to exist while we argue over them simply because we cant put the speedy delete on it. I think it either needs to be made redundant or rewritten with immediate effect.

Support	0
Neutral	0
Oppose	5

Support as nominator - It's too vague and deletion will make it a lot easier to do editing jobs. Smuff 21:57, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It needs a rewrite; deleting it will not accomplish anything. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 22:02, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bovell. Doc.Richtofen 22:10, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bovell too. Slowrider7 22:52, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Bovell three.--WouldYouKindly 00:07, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Change of vote: Oppose - You're right, Per Bovell four, when I posted this I really just wanted to get something done to it. Smuff 00:18, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I've been in discussion with various people about Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity and am in the process of offering a draft proposal in the War Room. As the others have stated, the policy needs a re-write, not a deletion. I think we can consider this AfD closed. --Scottie theNerd 06:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Cook (Call of Duty 4)

Pvt. Cook is an un-confirmed glitch in Call of Duty 4. The glitch should at least be officially confirmed if this article is to stay.

Support - Something like this needs confirmation for documentation. The Holy gun has a source to verify its existence. This... does not. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Support - ...What Chia said. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  08:22, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - There is proof no? There are tons of videos of it on YouTube, and Cook's page does have a link to one of them. --Ant423 22:52, January 5, 2010 (UTC)Ant423

Comment - The video you're reffering to is actually of a hacked/modded version of the game. That's why Gaz still dies, and why the Ultranationalists seem to ignore Cook while he's attacking them.Gmanington MCCCXLII 18:51, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Chiafriend12. Sgt. Demon Magnetism ^{T C E}

Oppose - it has happened to me before, you just have to bust your ass to keep him alive. If I can do it again I WILL make a YouTube video with my user name in the description. -- CoD addict (talk · edits) 04:14, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Although Cook may be Non-canon, that does not make him a glitch. If he is a glitch, then why is it always Cook, not some other random generated soldier?

Oppose- It is a nice little bit of side story. This and other articles give the wiki flavour. Bearded Hoplite 03:50, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - For all the reasons stated above. It's true that if it was a glitch, it should be a randomly generated solder. 7th Body 16:31, February 13, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

5.7x28mm

Support	2
Neutral	0
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. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It has been six months six the AfD and no new content has been added. As the ammunition type is not specified in the game, would this fail the Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity criteria? It seems a bit excessive to create articles on ammunition when they are not specifically referred to in game, in addition to the game providing no information about them. --Scottie theNerd 13:27, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Then we would have to create a page for every ammo type for every weapon in every game (Unless of course the weapon or ammo type is repeated.) Jdcoolha 13:59, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't think it has any relevance to the game series and therefore, a simple specification on the general info of the P90 should be enough for this caliber. SSD 天皇陛下萬歳！ 14:07, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

First-Person Shooter

This is just like putting an article say what a video game is.

Reznov's Machete

Unnecessary page, it's simply a weapon that only sees use in 2 places. Not needed. Also, it's not a very well written page.     17:41, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support as nominator.     17:41, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support though if the content of the page is anything of value, merge to Sgt. Resnov. Sgt. Demon Magnetism ^{T C E}

Comment Maybe this page and Roebuck's machete can be merged under a single artcle called machete?? Ant423 03:45, February 2, 2010 (UTC)Ant423

Support - Can't this just be merged with Resnov? Smuff 01:17, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Papa Six

Papa Six was only there callsign in the E3 demo. The final version uses Bravo Six.(super-noob)February 23, 2010

What sniper would you add to any CoD game?

This should not be an actual article; completely unnecessary. Should be a blog, not an article. Plus, it say "Wha", not "What"

Support - As Nominator 7th Body 22:30, February 23, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Comment - This articles qualifies for speedy deletion, so you don't have to worry about posting it here for a vote. Imrlybord7 04:58, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Scott

He is a very non-important character who is randomly generated and I have yet to see him appear in the game. Also, the page is barely written and calls him a "Backround Character" There are only 2 sentences about him.

Support - As nominator 7th Body 03:49, February 27, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Winston Churchill

The article has nothing in it that relates to CoD. Lt. Dunn 16:28, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As Nominator. Lt. Dunn 16:28, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - No relation to Call of Duty. Is not mentioned in the game and fails the Character notability policy. --Scottie theNerd 10:48, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

RfD Successful - Article has been deleted. Imrlybord7 12:43, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criteria, I presume. --Scottie theNerd 13:09, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Tactical knifes

Trolling, it is a delightfully useless page. ''Master Kenobi 18:41, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - as nominator ''Master Kenobi 18:41, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Page was speedy deleted. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 18:55, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

World War I

While this may be important to the history of WWII, it has no mention, setting or any overall reference to the game. I think this is one of those articles that Wikipedia can explain rather than CoD Wiki. If Treyarch bring out Call of Duty: Trench Warfare, this will be needed, but the idea of making a game where the only available weapons are bolt action rifles is highly unlikely, therefore the need for this article has ran it's course.

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support as nominator. Smuff 10:03, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support on the basis that WWI has no relevance to Call of Duty, rather than any conjecture about setting per nominator. --Scottie theNerd 10:46, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Not been set in any COD game, so yeah. DevilWarrior11210:53, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is most likely going to be deleted under speedy delete criteria. --Scottie theNerd 10:47, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Scottie's right. WWI has no mention in any of the Call of Duty games, thus failing to meet Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity (which fortunately does not impede us here). Deleting on the criteria that the page is irrelevant to COD. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 12:31, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ho ho ho. It's mentioned in two different games. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 18:23, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Kraeer

This is just a random character as it states in the page itself. It has no purpose.

Support as nominator DanielM4712 13:19, March 28, 2010 (UTC) (ps sorry about the formatting of this post, it won't switch back to normal)

Trench Magazine

The article is purely a historical article, which would be against Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity or the proposed notability policy. The Trench Magazine is only an excuse to give the Arisaka rifle more ammo and the information should be noted in the Arisaka article. As such, the article does not have a purpose and does not contain information specifically related to COD. --Scottie theNerd 14:50, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator. Scottie theNerd 14:58, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per StN. Doc. Richtofen 14:58, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Not article-worthy. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 02:37, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Clearly not relevant to CoD. Darkman 4 07:49, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Clan

We already have a better page than it called Clan Tag. It has all the info and better description that this page. Therefore I think it should be deleted.

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator. Doc. Richtofen 18:18, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It can be redirected if needed, or merged with Clan Tag Commander W567123daniel^{Wanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup?} 18:19, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support - General gaming term; not specific to Call of Duty. --Scottie theNerd 18:42, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

NASA

I'm almost certain that this article also qualifies for speedy deletion. NASA isn't even directly mentioned in any CoD game! Why do we need an article on it? Sgt. S.S. 19:58, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
Support as nominator. Sgt. S.S. 19:58, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by Imrlybord7. --Scottie theNerd 20:14, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

/tips tophat Imrlybord7 20:15, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Magazine

Per ammo pages.

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - as nominator.      21:28, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - No relation to CoD. Hell, I'd be willing to delete it right now. Darkman 4 21:29, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think it just makes it into speedy deletion. Delete if you want.      21:32, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Darkman 4, has NO relation to CoD. Sgt.Ex^{Ask the Expert, He'll answer!} 21:33, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Deleted by Darkman      21:40, April 6, 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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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)

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	4
Neutral	0
Oppose	9

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. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 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. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 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. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) !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|Blog|Contributions|Editcount} 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)

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	1
Neutral	1
Oppose	0

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. Raven's wing ^Talk10:12, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Eh, just redirect it. --Scottie theNerd 11:01, April 8, 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	5
Neutral	0
Oppose	3

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. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  17:38, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Pointless     19:49, 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. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Change to Oppose - Yeah, Chia does have a point there, with the Granularity policy. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  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 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 - 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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 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:

:   * Hitler received the Iron Cross, Second Class in 1914, and the Iron Cross First Class in 1918, for his bravery in combat. 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 Führer. 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, that's all. This can be mentioned in the level article. The Granularity policy states that stuff in the game, no matter how miniscule, should have its own article. The battle that it takes place in, that's reasonable. Much bigger historical value than the person the level was named after. Again, that's 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 shouldn't be dedicating a page for someone only mentioned in CoD. That's 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. Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 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)

Tottally usless. Just about a guy eating while watching two soldiers. Waste of bandwidth. - SkierPS3

Support- He's an incredibly minor character, we don't 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 requirements. - 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)

Change to oppose - Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. It doesn't matter how short or useless this is.

Killed in Action

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	2

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. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 01:30, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - According to Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, 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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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. Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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)

Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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 - "Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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 itYour 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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, 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)

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	2

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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, if it appears once, it deserves its own article. --Scottie theNerd 07:18, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - due to Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. —Unsigned comment was added by TheManOfIron

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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	2

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)

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	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, 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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. --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

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Previously, attempts to tag the page have been overruled. In light of recent discussions and changes to Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, 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. —Unsigned comment was added by TheManOfIron

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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, 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 Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 17:24, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete and merge - As nominator. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 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? —Unsigned comment was added by TheManOfIron

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

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

TBH, I think this is taking Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity 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. —Unsigned comment was added by TheManOfIron

Comment Added "voting" template Captain Hax 217 ^{T C E} 17:12, April 2, 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. —Unsigned comment was added by TheManOfIron

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... —Unsigned comment was added by TheManOfIron

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	1
Neutral	1
Oppose	0

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. Raven's wing ^Talk10:12, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Eh, just redirect it. --Scottie theNerd 11:01, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Execution of Yasir-Al-Fulani

Sgt. S.S. thought this should be deleted, so I'm hoping he will be able to elaborate as to why here. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 19:35, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support	5
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Strong Support - This article can all be placed to Yasir Al-Fulani (Actual Article), if it were to be deleted, I would put the info from it onto Yasir Al-Fulani. <choose><option>azuris_</option><option> Azuris^talk</option>

Support - belongs under Yasir Al-Fulani Darthkenobi0^{Talk|Blog|Editcount} 20:10, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ermmm... The Coup? Smuff 17:24, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Darthkenobi0. 17:40, April 23, 2010 (UTC) Support - Ditto Cpl. Dunn. Sgt. S.S.Comms

Support- Merge with The Coup. Squelliot Talk Edits 11:51, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Mills Bomb

The article contains barely any relivence to Call of Duty, it is basically an ammunition article, all of whch were deleted, therefore has no place on the wiki. It is poorly done, has no information about the actual game relivence itself and is mainly pictures

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	4

Support - as nominator. Smuff 12:01, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The article is in need of serious help, which would mean it should be the improvement drive so editors can be made aware of it. Mills Bomb is actually a grenade in Call of Duty and Call of Duty 2, but it looks like people forgot about this page and did not add the appropriate information about it. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 12:50, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Why would you want to delete a weapons page? Slowrider7 13:02, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The other grenades have articles, why can't this have one? Niel15 13:05, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a legitimate weapon article; not an ammunition article. --Scottie theNerd 15:16, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox\coolcoolman9

i think it is just an article created to promote a gamertag. I deleted the content. COL Crockett 22:18, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the page? If it's a spam page, mark it for speedy deletion. --Scottie theNerd 07:59, May 4, 2010 (UTC)