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

Contents 1 Sniper Teams One and Two 2 B-52 Stratofortress 3 No Scoping 4 CALL OF DUTY 4 MODERN WARFARE: STRATEGY GUIDE 5 Type 95 Scout Car 5.1 Closing 6 Prefire 7 Camping 8 Ghosting Advice 9 Drop Shot 10 First-Person Shooter 11 Call of Duty Black Ops:Zombie Weapons 12 Kowloon 13 Young Marine 14 Unspecified United States General 15 Sleeping VC 16 United States Air Force 17 Castro's Mistress 18 German Sentries 19 German Prisoner (World at War) 20 Zampella, Zampella (Call of Duty), and Zampella (Call of Duty 2) 21 Civilian 22 British Commandos 23 Harpoon 24 Noob Tube 25 Jump Shot 26 Hockey1.jpg 27 Kino Der Toten Strategy 28 Elena Siegman 29 Zombie Bells 30 Eaten By A Grue 31 Nacht der Untoten/Strategies, Verruckt/Strategies, Shi No Numa/Strategies, Der Riese/Strategies, Kino der Toten/Strategies, and "Five"/Strategies

Sniper Teams One and TwoEdit

Sniper Team One's information is all covered in the articles for Smith and Scully, whilst Sniper Team Two's information is covered in the articles for Archer and Toad. These articles are useless and repetitive. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 11:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Though you do have a point, it would only serve to undermine the comprehensiveness of the wiki. Why not delete Special Air Service or US Army? The information there is also covered in other articles. We're not here to downsize, we're here to be the best source possible for all information regarding Call of Duty. Just because something is repetitive doesn't mean it's not valid. Chief z 22:49, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — I feel they should stay. Cpl. Dunn^(Talk) 01:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — The SAS and US Army are completely different examples. The US Army nearly every single Call of Duty game so far, whilst the SAS is a broad force with numerous different factions. If you look at the two articles nominated, the only information contained are the biographies and Trivia of Archer, Smith, Toad and Scully. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 03:54, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

The SAS is a regiment within the British military. It itself is not even one faction. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 00:37, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — My terminology is used for convenience, its accuracy is not relevant here. My point still stands, however. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 01:24, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Okay, perhaps that was a bad example, but my other point still stands. We are the most comprehensive source of information for Call of Duty. If you feel that they're just a repetition of their members' articles, then perhaps you should rewrite them in a way that it's not, instead of suggesting we delete them. To me, deleting the two seems like the easy way out. Chief z 08:32, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — Just because we don't have to consolidate, doesn't mean we shouldn't. A while back I argued to keep the Stalingrad article because it listed all appearances of said city in Call of Duty, whilst others argued that the information was found elsewhere, honestly why not just keep consolidated pages for information? Some people might remember "Sniper Team Two" but not "Archer and Toad", keep them for convenience. --Good editing! Darthkenobi0(talk) 01:30, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — If there isn't any new or unique information between the articles, then we should merge and redirect instead of delete. However, I feel that both the Sniper Teams and their respective members have notability. --Scottie theNerd 09:43, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Well it's about teams and what they do while a team. It wouldn't have enough info if they were just seperate articles. Sgt. SpetSnAZ CM 17:46, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The articles will not be deleted. Sactage Give me a ping, Vasily. _{IRC War Room} 03:32, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

B-52 Stratofortress Edit

This is Rolling Thunder. What's the point of having it as an article when the article Rolling Thunder already lists the name of the aircraft? They both are the same thing, but Rolling Thunder has less real life info. (Which is good.)Sgt. SpetSnAZ CM 17:35, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support — As nominator.Sgt. SpetSnAZ CM 17:35, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — We have articles on the AH-64, which is basically the Chopper Gunner. Also, as the AH-64 appears in the campaign, the B-52 could play a significant role in a campaign mission too, meaning if this was deleted it would only have to be created again. Eltomo85 ^talk 18:43, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Eltomo85 is right. Having a separate page for each vehicle, plane, heli etc. is a good thing and it expands the whole connection between the vehicle and it's use in SP/MP. Sgt.Frank Woods 19:38, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Until then, there is no need for it. Just saying, your making it sound like it's a big deal creating the article again.Sgt. SpetSnAZ CM 19:33, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — What if it doesn't appear in SP? I just feel there is no need for 2 articles that are the same exact thing. Sgt. SpetSnAZ CM 19:50, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — So? We have an article on the C-130 which drops the Emergency Airdrop. The B-52 falls into the exact same category. Furthermore, There is no point deleting just it because we don't know much about itif we were to operate on that basis then this article still has more legitimacy than some of Black Ops' weapons pages which aren't even fully confirmed. I made this article because it filled a hole of legitimate information. Smuff 19:53, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — We must have a page for the vehicle AND a SEPARATE page for its MP/killstreak counterpart, the same way we have an article on the Bridgelayer and another one on Big Foot. They are the same thing too, but need to be both covered by articles, as other Brigdelayers (or even B-52s) may appear on the series. Also, the B-52 article should be used to describe the plane, its appearences, trivia etc. and the Rolling Thunder article to cover what the plane does in MP, its own trivia, maybe an infobox... Panther64 00:00, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — If Panther64 is right, we'll need to create a page for the SR-71 vehicle itself, and another for it's multiplayer counterpart. Bravo Five-Nine ^Talk 18:03, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — Per EltonDMK961 20:11, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - no consensus.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

No Scoping Edit

Very small. Can easily be covered in Quick Scoping

Support — As nominator--Super2k 22:20, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — They are two different techniques of *cough*abusing the aim assist*cough*, so therefore require two different articles - 22:24, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Scotland. Why don't we just delete every article detailing techniques in CoD? nlmgr

Comment — like what?--Super2k 22:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support — I agree to delete it. But we have to fuse it with quick scoping and call it "Scoping Techniques" GunsSwordsFlames 02:38, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — It's not like quick-scoping. Similar, but not. SSDGFCTCT9 (Talk) 22:43, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — I just think that they are each small enough that they warrant one all-encompassing article--Super2k 22:48, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

That's slightly irrelevant, as the Wiki has plenty of small articles, but because they pertain about different elements, they get their own article. SSDGFCTCT9 (Talk) 22:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support — No-scoping is not a tactic at all; it's a feat of luck and luck alone. I don't think it even warrants a mention here. Quickscoping is an actual tactic and is useable Yüri Kaslov 23:05, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Merge into Quickscope. Both are terms that are heavily used and engrained in the COD community, regardless of what you may think of it. Not sure it's detailed enough to warrant its own article. Maybe even just a mention in a glossary or something. bibliomaniac15 03:38, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support — It's not so much a technique as much as it is left-clicking without aiming first. It's a term that is already mentioned in the glossary and does not need an article to embellish it. --Scottie theNerd 06:04, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — No, it's a form of shooting a lot of people don't know about. Quick scoping and No scoping are different things. Sgt. SpetSnAZ CM 02:33, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

No scoping is as much as a technique as pushing the fire button. It's not a technique; it's a term. --Scottie theNerd 03:49, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support — Now I think about it, they are both just technique articles. We don't have a hipfire article do we? - 17:13, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Per my view on all tactics/technique and term pages. Dolten Let's Talk 23:30, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Just merge it into Quickscope/Noscope like above. It'd help a bunch more to people too. YellowRiolu-Always on Xbox. 15:31, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — No Scoping is NOT Quick Scoping. LITE992 16:01, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

New Idea: How about we delete Quick and No scoping and make an article called: Sniper Techniques I'm a bit new here. So when does voting end? --Super2k 17:59, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Will be deleted if it hasn't already.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

CALL OF DUTY 4 MODERN WARFARE: STRATEGY GUIDE Edit

Do we even need this? Its not even a strategy guide. It should be deleted. Eltomo85 ^talk 17:03, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

PS, doesn't this qualify for speedy deletion. Eltomo85 ^talk 17:06, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's a junk article. I don't see why it shouldn't be speedy-deleted. --Scottie theNerd 17:07, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Nomination closed: Speedy-deleted. Dolten Let's Talk 20:24, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Type 95 Scout CarEdit

Just a background item. We don't have an article for Trees. Support — As nominator Dolten Let's Talk 23:27, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — We have a page for AV-8B Harrier II don't we? I'd say that falls under the same category. 23:39, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's used in a killstreak, this isn't used for anything. Dolten Let's Talk 18:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

The killstreak is used for the killstreak, the plane is used as a background element in Exodus. 11:45, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Question — Is this car ever seen in motion/in use? If so, I say oppose Yüri Kaslov 23:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Dolten Let's Talk 18:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — You drive one, it's legitimate. Also, the Harrier is a killstreak though, so it's abit higher in the tiers. The Smuff 16:58, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen it being drove, nor drivin it. Dolten Let's Talk 18:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Everything should be covered. >SiPlus -talk -contributions_ 13:23, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — CoD addict - 21:55, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

{{Oppose| I agree with the smuff AngryWalrus

Support — By the sound of it this map is about as real as Courtyards. If it is fake it shouldn't be there. Seijana 08:53, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — The Fast File doesn't necessarily have to be in the game for the map's loadscreen to be displayed. The loadscreen image files are kept separate from the FastFiles; they are instead kept in the IWI files.

Furthermore, the maps are referenced in the game's code. Using the available Fast File Viewer program, one can view the updated MP Fast Files that came with the Stimulus Package and view the code that references Oil Rig (as well as Vertigo and Gulag).

I also recall seeing the game fail to load the map when the player tries to play on the map, giving the player an error message saying "mp_oilrig.ff cannot be found" (or something to that extent). EON 8 22:30, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — There are no even loadscreen and compass map.

Yes, the maps are referenced in game code, but nothing more than reference can be found in game. >SiPlus -talk -contributions_ 18:38, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

ClosingEdit

AFD closed by opener and false information removed. >SiPlus -talk -contributions_ 18:38, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

PrefireEdit

OK this article is just the idea of walking around a corner shooting. I'm not sure its even a tactic!

Support — As nominator --Super2k 14:40, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support — This is like an article on aiming or bouncing frag grenades off of things --GothicEmperor Talk ^Contribs 21:00, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support — No technique pages. 11:44, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — If all technique pages go, so be it. However, prefire is a valid tactic and one that I had to look up after some players kept talking about it online. I came to this wiki to find the answer (as I always do) and there was no information about it until I added it. --DoomGoober 00:07, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Although DoomGoober's point is valid, we have a glossary for these such terms. CoD addict - 21:53, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Per CoD addict Thunder9092 03:16, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - per all other technique pages.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

CampingEdit

Per all other technique pages.

Support — As nominator. 16:39, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Per nomination. --Super2k 00:11, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Subjective. As much a reason I need as any. YuriKaslov 00:15, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — I think technique pages should exist for users to learn how to execute them, and for newbies reading it and learning about it. Panther64 23:52, November 26, 2010 (UTC) It's considered n00by to camp, but this is a technique page and the page could say that it's bad

Comment — Have you even read ore policies? I doubt you have here take a look at this COD:NOTABILITY.--Super2k 13:15, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Strongly agree with Panther64, but I see the argument against it. Cpt. Dragunov 1:14, November 27, 2010

While the point is a good one, this wiki is cannon only. 16:55, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Belongs in Glossary CoD addict - 22:34, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — It shows people how to use them and it shows techniques of camping. DMK961 20:14, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — This is a technique in multiplayer and Nazi Zombies, just like no scoping. We should keep because this is just like no scoping and no one wants to delete that.-- dinosaurfan1 0:17 December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Should be on another website, such as a strategy guide. This wiki talks about subjects within the Call of Duty universe. "Camping" has nothing to do with Call of Duty. It is a multiplayer tactic that players came up with. John "Soap" MacTavish, for example, IS a COD-related subject. --Ant423 23:49, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — This is techinque in Multiplayer and Nazi Zombies just like no scoping. We should keep it because it doesn't seem right if we keep No scope and not camping. —Unsigned comment was added by dinosaurfan

Support — Another technique page. LITE992 06:31, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

No consensus -  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Ghosting AdviceEdit

Another technique page.

Support — As nominator Thunder9092 02:06, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Per nomination. 16:55, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support — No technique pages allowed. Cpl.Bohater 17:22, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article deleted Sactage ^talk 16:10, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Drop ShotEdit

Per all other technique pages.

Support — As nominator. 18:14, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Per nomination. --Super2k 13:15, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Technique pages are useful for clarifying what people are talking about during live matches. This wiki has always benefited from a little commentary along with facts, and many of these terms like dropshot are helpful for newbies to understand what other players are talking about. --DoomGoober 00:07, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

While yur point is valid, this wiki is cannon only. Sorry. 16:55, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — If clarifying terms are what this page is needed for, then just have the definition in the glossary. A seperate page is not needed Thunder9092 03:14, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Belongs in Glossary CoD addict - 21:34, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support — Per all supports YuriKaslov 21:40, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Per nomination Thunder9092 03:14, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article was deleted some time ago. Sactage ^talk 16:12, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

First-Person ShooterEdit

Not particularly relevant to Call of Duty; fairly vague article and mostly IRL info. not necessary as most people who play CoD will know what an FPS is. Suggest having a link the wikipedia article on the Call of Duty series page, but deleting the FPS page itself. YuriKaslov 18:17, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support — As nominator YuriKaslov 19:30, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support — A brief description can be included on this page. 18:19, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

It tells what the wiki explorer what maybe what type of game Call of Duty is Crazyman121 12:01, December 4, 2010 (UTC)Crazyman121 LOLROFLOMGLAMO

Comment — If they didn't already know that CoD is an FPS then they're too fucking stupid to even know how to USE the videogame. YuriKaslov 19:30, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

That is very disrespectful, and not the type of attitude you should have when contributing to an encyclopedia. 16:55, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Disrespectful to WHO? It's true. And you know that I don't treat other editors with such heated words. YuriKaslov 17:05, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

It's disrespectful to the hypothetical people that don't know what a first person shooter is. And it doesn't matter if it's "true", when editing an encyclopedia you are to assume that the reader knows nothing about the subject, so as to include all important information. 17:34, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

This article is up for deletion entirely because it's unimportant. YuriKaslov 17:39, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

That obviously isn't what I'm getting at, as I have already supported this deletion. I was making a point, which I hope you understand. 17:41, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

I know you supported it, I'm not blind. And yeah, I understand the point. But why should I have to respect hypothetical people... people who may or may not even exist. YuriKaslov 17:47, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

If you do not know the answer to that question then perhaps you are not as mature as I once thought. 17:49, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Dude, he just used as a discription for stupid. Calm down. User:Cpt. Dragunov

Support — Per Yuri. Sgt. S.S. 18:32, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support — A link can be made to Wikipedia. LITE992 04:22, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - page will be deleted.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Call of Duty Black Ops:Zombie Weapons Edit

The information can be found on "Five" and Kino der Toten. No need for it.

Support — As nominator. Eltomo85 ^talk 07:44, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Currently this information cannot be found on the levels' articles. If you added this information to them and then nominated it, I would support. Poketape ^Talk 01:45, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — It shows where the locations of the weapons are.DMK961 20:19, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support-That so as called Wikia Contributer did this really well so I say keep it.M4A1 Master 8:57PM

No consensus  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Kowloon Edit

Most information here can be found in Numbers. it lacks content and is basically pointless.

Support — As nominator. Seijana 08:26, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support — You might as well give an article to every Call of Duty location. You wouldn't give an article to Berlin for World at War, or Petropavlovsk for Modern Warfare 2. Locations of the Campaign don't deserve pages. User:Cpt. Dragunov 12:58 Novevember 27, 2010

Oppose — Actually, yes you would. Poketape ^Talk 03:20, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — It falls right under COD:NOTABLE, and there's enough description. I think this is just deleting out of deleting's sake. Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 19:54, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — Per Smuff Cpl.Bohater 02:19, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — So, in your opinion, we need to give a page to say Fire Base Phoenix for MW2??? ONE five minute mission is played there. It's no different. Hudson goes to Kowloon one time, and, really, this mission could have been set anywhere and it really wouldn't have made a difference other than theatrics.User:Cpt. Dragunov 11:05 December 7, 2010

Comment — The thing is, it is very little more than a very brief summary of Numbers. Whether it falls under COD:NOTABLE or not, it's still a pointless article. Seijana 20:33, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — This is one of the key cities where the whole plot unravels itself and the CIA learns more about Nova 6. Omnicube1 23:28, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - no consensus.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Young Marine Edit

He is a part of the mission, his name is randomly generated. This could easily be covered in Crash Site.

Support — As nominator Darkraider09 21:38, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Support — As his name is randomly generated DMK961 12:34, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article deleted already Sactage ^talk 16:14, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Unspecified United States General Edit

He only has two lines, I think, and doesn't play a significant role in the story. Since we don't have Granularity anymore, this page should be deleted. [

Support — As nominator. Hk37 Need help? Contact me here! My edits 15:53, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — He is a character whose name never changes and his appearance is never randomly generated. I say keep it. YuriKaslov 19:32, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Yuri. Its like: if we delete this, we should delete Castro's mistress and Castro's double, because they fall in the same category. Bravo Five-Nine ^Talk 23:16, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Yuri. DMK961 12:35, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support — No one remembers this character... do you know why? He's not NOTABLE. He's also different from Castro's double and his mistress because:

• Castro is the mission objective, which the General is not

• The player freaking shoots Castro's double

• The assassination attempt on Castro actually plays a role in the story; a man on a car ride does not.

CoD addict - 22:28, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Yuri. 17:38, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support — per CoD Addict. Seijana 22:45, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — I believe that he can be included because COD:NOTABLE states that if a character has a fixed name and is consistently seen in a mission is notable. LITE992 06:40, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

No consensus  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Sleeping VCEdit

They would only be incorporated under Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, and have no recorded lines, just two sleeping soldiers.

Support — As nominator Bravo Five-Nine ^Talk 19:37, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per my above reasoning for the U.S. General, these characters do not change from game to game and play an active role in a mission. YuriKaslov 20:50, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — If there can be articles about random German prisoners, why shouldn't there be an article about the VC guards who you can kill optionally? -LyHungViet

Support — Then maybe we shouldn't have articles about random prisoners... laziness. CoD addict - 21:32, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support — Per Cod addictCpl.Bohater 19:14, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

The sleeping VC play a significantly more important role than two random Wermacht guards or executed POWs. Their appearance never changes, they are unique in that few characters are ever seen sleeping in the game, and the player can determine their fates. I say, keep them. LyHungViet - 21:37, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Granulatity isn't even enforced any more, so the nomination is invalid. --Callofduty4 21:43, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Call of Duty Wiki:Notability states that only characters with fixed names or who play a part in several missions get an article. These don't, and they aren't even interacted with. Not deserving of an article at all. --Callofduty4 21:45, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

They are interacted with. You put your hand over their mouths and stab them to death! These two characters play a part in the mission's storyline, therefore they are important enough characters in the game. Furthermore, Castro's mistress doesn't have a fixed name in game and only plays a part in one mission, yet still has her own article.

Comment — What, they are stabbed?! Their throats were slit, not 'stabbed'. Get your facts right. Bravo Five-Nine ^Talk 22:03, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Actually LyHyungViet is right, they ARE stabbed. Thrusting the "pointy" end of the knife into anything is, by default "stabbing". Slitting would be dragging the blade-side of the knife across. And mason does the former, not the latter. YuriKaslov 22:05, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

The way he says it though sounds like to put a knife in them repeated times. Bravo Five-Nine ^Talk 22:08, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Oh my goodness, regardless of whether they are stabbed or slit, they play a part in the storyline just as much as Castro's mistress does, maybe even more so seeing as they have two possible fates. LyHungViet

Deleting the damn oppose things that are all from the same user, use the comment template next time!!! Godd in Himmel! Bravo Five-Nine ^Talk 22:20, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — We also save a hostage at the end of Mile High Club, but we don't have a page for him nor his captor. This is due to notability purposes, as it is not feasible to cover anything and everything. Additionally, I find the arguments that because "page x" exists that "page y" should as well, rather irrelevant. This was talked about when we formulated the policy on notability, and it was decided that notability via association often leads to articles that do not pertain to this wiki's scope. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 22:35, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — When I played Victor Charlie, I didn't do anything to them... geez, so-rry. --Callofduty4 22:38, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Clearly a granularity article, not a notable one. bibliomaniac15 08:06, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support — You have got to be kidding. Toon Ganondorf (t c) DMK961 18:50, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

I can see that this article will most likely be deleted. Therefore, I will be nominating Castro's Mistress, German Prisoner (World at War) and German Senties for deletion as well, since they are just about as important in their various games as the VC guards. I hope all you people lobbying for the deletion of this article will support me in getting rid of these ones as well, since they too are granularity articles and are not notable enough to have their own pages. -LyHungViet

Support — Lets go ahead and make pages for every soldier that's doing a "new unique thing." How about the soldiers watching Soyuz 1 launch in Executive Order? These characters are really no different. -User: Cpt. Dragunov

Neutral — Not sure if it should be deleted or not.

Closed - Article Deleted Sactage ^talk 16:15, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

United States Air Force Edit

A useless article. Not really a factio in-game. --Conqueror of all Zombies 00:12, December 7, 2010 (UTC) Support — As nominator --Conqueror of all Zombies 00:12, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — The controllable AC-130 in Death From Above, Neitsch and Mosely are part of the USAF. Not to mention they appear in many missions as Backup NPC --Sgt.Sandwich | Talk shop | Combat record 00:20, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Are you out of your mind? It's a faction of the army that's featured in Call of Duty games. You might as well delete Navy Seals - User: Cpt. Dragunov

Oppose — United States Air Force Does quite a bit in the game eg you control Bigeye 6DMK961 12:29, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — The USAF plays a large role a number of times:

• The AC-130 in Death From Above
• The Harrier jets in Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2
• The F4s seen throughout Black Ops.
• Big Eye 6
• There's more I can't be bothered listing.

Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 12:40, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — As other users outlined, the USAF plays critical roles in almost every Call of Duty game. I can't think of a game which doesn't have the USAF in it. CoD addict - 22:22, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per all 17:38, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — If we were to delete this, we would have to delete all other military pages like it, such as Marines and Army. Sp3c^Sprechen 07:55, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article will not be deleted. Sactage ^talk 16:17, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Castro's MistressEdit

The notablility policy on this wiki states that a character must play an important role in several missions/ have a fixed name in order to make it notable. Castro's mistress only appears in game for about five seconds, says almost nothing, and is basically just another NPC. Everything in her article can be added to the Triva section of Operation 40.

Support — As the nominator for deletion.- LyHungViet

Even though she is only in like 10 seconds of the game she still plays a major role.Cpl.Bohater 19:12, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Per the above stated in the Sleeping VC section. Bravo Five-Nine ^Talk 15:47, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Plays a notable role in the mission (i.e. attempt to kill some of the main characters) and her role as well as her appearance stays the same. I also feel this nomination is being used as a sort of retribution for the Sleeping VC article being deleted, which the nominator so happened to create. --Callofduty4 17:40, December 7, 2010 (UTC)She was just a meat shield for the fake Castro.

Oppose — Just like the two AfD articles above. YuriKaslov 17:43, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — No retribution at all. Not all of us are so trivial minded as the person who wrote that comment. I just learned that if a page doesn't fit the notability policy, it seems like it should be deleted.LyHungViet

Oppose — This nomination is purely retaliation, I feel, and has no merit. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 21:17, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Like I said before, retaliation has nothing to do with it. Why the hell would I care so much about some article on a website I usually visit about once every week? I'm just following examples set by the notability guidelines and other editors. I actually don't care that much if you delete this or not, I just nominated it because it didn't fit the guidelines.LyHungViet

Comment — Allright, I'm going to remove my nomination for deletion. I really don't want people to think I did this to spite them. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is closed!LyHungViet

Oppose — Does try to kill main charactor and is taken by Cuba PoliceDMK961 12:27, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Oppose — Only female enemy in the series, that is what makes this character notable. ← Bravo Five-Nine ^Talk 00:26, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — 1. The player can interact with her physically. 2. She is an enemy. 3. She is a female enemy (The first in the series) 4. She has a unique character model, build, appearance, etc. --Ant423 05:35, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

In response: 1. Physical interaction isn't part of being notable; same with #2 (being an enemy). Gender (#3) itself isn't a notable point (otherwise we'd be all hoo-hah about the first character who is dark skin, blue eyes, left-handed, has a name starts with 'Z', one-eyed, etc.). And while her model (#4) is unique, you could likewise say the same for one-off characters who only appear for one scene, such as the Cuban officer in the very first mission who gets stabbed. The mistress's contribution to the game is more or less equal to his. He does have his own article, so if we're using that as a benchmark for notability, then the mistress has a valid reason to stay. I'd challenge the notability level, but that's a different discussion. --Scottie theNerd 06:06, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support — As a character she isn't notable, as her contribution to the story is a fleeting mention in the mission. Her actions (pulling a gun on a main character) may be notable, but that can already be covered in the respective mission article. Remember that in many cases, it's not the person who is notable but what they do, and the content should be organised accordingly. The mistress article should be deleted because there is nothing we can write about her beyond what is already in the mission article. --Scottie theNerd 05:58, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per all Conqueror of all Zombies 04:01, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article will not be deleted. Sactage ^talk 16:19, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

German SentriesEdit

Just two random NPCs in the game that are killed off in a matter of seconds. They to not fit the criteria of the notability policy which states that characters must have fixed names/ play an important part in a mission/missions to deserve their own article. Everything on their page can be added to the Trivia seciton of the mission they appear in.

Support — As the nominator for deletion.- LyHungViet

Support — Whilst I oppose Castro's Mistress, this LyHungViet is correct in deeming this article to be of the same stock as Sleeping VC, and it should be deleted for consistency. Toon Ganondorf (t c) 21:19, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support — There are a bajillion German sentries in just the first COD game alone, not to mention all the other ones. A no-brainer. bibliomaniac15 21:42, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Very Little Role in the gameDMK961 12:24, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Support — I see no reason to keep this article at all. CoD addict - 22:19, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article deleted Sactage ^talk 16:07, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

German Prisoner (World at War)Edit

Plays almost no part in the mission, and does not fit the notablility policy for this wiki, which states that characters must have fixed names/ play an important role in a mission/missions in order to have their own article. Anything interesting in this article can be added to the Trivia section of the mission he appears in.

Support — As the nominator for deletion.- LyHungViet

Support — Why the hell do we make pages for unnamed soldiers who have one line or no lines and are immediately executed? DOES ANYBODY ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THIS CHARACTER??? If you do, speak up now, then make pages for all NPCs like this.-User:Cpt. Dragunov

Strong Support — Plays Very Little Role in the game DMK961 20:26, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Utterly useless page CoD addict - 22:17, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article Deleted Sactage ^talk 16:22, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Zampella, Zampella (Call of Duty), and Zampella (Call of Duty 2)Edit

It is claimed that Zampella did so-and-so in certain battles, when in fact I have demonstrated by going through the game files in Randomly generated soldiers that Zampella is actually a randomly assigned name (#125 in COD1, #40 in COD2). bibliomaniac15 03:03, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support — As nominator bibliomaniac15 03:03, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Note, if not a delete, then at least a redirect to Randomly generated soldiers. bibliomaniac15 03:03, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support — I rarely saw the name Zampella in Call of Duty and CoD2. Why do we insist on making pages for randomly generated characters? User: Cpt. Dragunov

Support — Zampella is a randomly generated character. He is named after Vince Zampella, the producer at Infinity Ward. --Scottie theNerd 05:54, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - articles have been deleted/redirected as necessary.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Civilian Edit

Simply a collection of locations where they can be found, and should not really have an article, under notable.

Support — As nominator. Eltomo85 ^talk 18:49, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Yuri Cpl.Bohater 19:09, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — They have a major role in more than on CoD game, and besides, we have a page on Randomly generated soldiers. YuriKaslov 18:47, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Yuri. 17:38, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — The Luftwaffe have an article and they aren't in the game as much as civilians are. Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 14:20, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Smuff. Sgt. S.S. 22:15, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

No consensus  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

British CommandosEdit

They are just the British SAS. All of this can be covered by writing it there.

Support — As nominator. User: Cpt. Dragunov

Strong Oppose — Since when is it implied they're the SAS? At no point in the game does it say that they Commandos are the same as the SAS in game, thus naming policy states that these are a different faction. Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 12:35, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Oppose — Major enemy faction. Not SAS. YuriKaslov 18:45, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — There's nothing to prove or deny that it is the SAS. I also note that there were commando units outside the SAS, of which Wikipedia provides an excellent article on, as well as the SOE, which handled very clandestine missions. bibliomaniac15 19:14, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — What other British army factions paratroop to places? That would be the really be exclusive to the SAS. User: Cpt. Dragunov

We don't even know if the commandos are paratroopers in the first place. All we know is that they are British, and that they are part of some special forces. bibliomaniac15 06:07, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

The Parachute Regiment are paratroopers. Eltomo85 ^talk 19:49, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I can't convince anyone this is the SAS I will be removing my nomination. This discussion is over. User: Cpt. Dragunov

Closed - User withdraws nomination. Eltomo85 ^talk 18:15, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

HarpoonEdit

Doesnt do much in the way of being a weapon. —Unsigned comment was added by DMK961

Strong Oppose — Neither does the Barrett .50 in CoD4, but we aren't going to delete that. It plays a large enough role in the campaign. YuriKaslov 19:13, December 11, 2010 (UTC) Comment — well like what shotrocket was saying the barret-50-call should never be deleted is because it plays a large role in multiplayer

Strong Oppose — Yeah, YuriKaslov is right. Without this weapon, Mason wouldn't have escaped Vorkuta, at least not easily. As far as I'm concerned, it plays as big a part as the regular KS-23. User- Cpt. Dragunov

Strong Oppose — As said before, we are not here to downsize, and it is a weapon, serving as an anti air launcher. Okay. Bai bai. AngryWalrus

Comment — Barret-50-cal plays a large role in multiplayerDMK961 18:56, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

so why the hell did you nominate it for deletion if you were just going to oppose. YuriKaslov 21:06, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Can be covered in trivia. The Barrett .50cal has it's own page because it plays a large role in multiplayer. 17:38, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Wait, yeah, why did you nominate this for deletion? That doesn't make any sense at all if you just wanted to oppose it. Just remove your nomination. User: Cpt. Dragunov

Strong Oppose — Vital to the Vorkuta escape plan. LITE992 03:51, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

No consensus  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Noob Tube Edit

Can be covered in the glossary.

Support — As nominatior. 17:54, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Just redirect it to Grenade Launcher. YuriKaslov 17:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

How about both? 17:57, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can delete it AND redirect it at the same time. YuriKaslov 17:59, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Redirected to Grenade Launcher. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 19:28, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Jump Shot Edit

Another technique page.

Support — As nominator Thunder9092 09:08, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Per nomination. YuriKaslov 20:12, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support — 16:04, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article deleted Sactage ^talk 16:26, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Hockey1.jpg Edit

I'm not sure if this is the right place for it, but File:Hockey1.jpg needs to be deleted. Some idiot posted it on Stadium claiming it was a "possible vote image found in the PC version's files." The "cs_hockey" in the lower left corner is a dead giveaway that it's just a Counter-Strike map, not a hidden file.

Support — As nominatior. EON 8 00:40, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral — It's probably just his opinion into what a possible one could be, add a {{sdelete}} tag and say it's not official. And don't refer to people as idiots, it does against COD:UTP. Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 21:50, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - More suitable for speedy delete. Sactage Give me a ping, Vasily. _{IRC War Room} 22:01, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Kino Der Toten Strategy Edit

We already have a page for this, and it is much better then this one. --Conqueror of all Zombies 01:23, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support — As nominator --Conqueror of all Zombies 01:23, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support — Isn't there a rule against strategy guides anyway?Cpl.Bohater 21:37, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — I don't think so...there are strategy pages for the other zombie maps. Conqueror of all Zombies 04:57, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose — I've seen users on the IRC looking for these things, I personally think there should be one for Five also. Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 14:18, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Merge as subpage - We don't need a completely separate article explaining strategies for a level. We cover those as either sections or subpages of the topic's page. If people are looking for them we can add some useful redirects redirecting them to the page we have, which, in the case I'm advocating for, would unfortunately not be a title people would usually directly search for if they don't know their way around wikis particularly well. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 23:03, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — We alread have Kino der Toten/Strategies and Five/Strategies. Conqueror of all Zombies 04:05, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - duplicate page.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Elena Siegman Edit

Totally IRL info, not needed, just doesn't happen to meet speedy deletion criteria.

Support — As nominator. Seijana 22:49, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — We have pages for Josh Olin and Robert Bowling, two IRL pages that also aren't needed. Most of the info on those pages are IRL too. Conqueror of all Zombies 22:52, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — Above, as well as that we have her songs here, why not her? OverseerTange 01:20, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support — Do we really need an article on the artist? Just put a foot note at the bottom of the songs. She doesn't, after all, work for Treyarch if my memory serves. Yüri Kaslov 01:21, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support — We don't need that article because she doesn't have anything major to do with the series. Sp3ctr3 130 Ki11er - 04:00, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment — Speaking of this, where can I find the inevidable discussions about pages dedicated to real people? Seijana 22:13, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support — I don't see why an article on the artist is really necessary. Cpt. Dragunov 2:22, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed no consensus.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  00:55, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Zombie Bells Edit

Considering that the page on the album was deleted, I see no need for a page on a song from the album.

Support — As nominator elmo's ramblings 12:47, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted - Article is unnecessary.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  13:18, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Eaten By A Grue Edit

Already an article, and the official name is Eaten by a Grue.

Support — As nominator Shadowalkers Speak. 22:14, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirected.Sgt.Sandwich | Talk shop | Combat record 22:15, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article has been redirected to correct capitalization... Sactage ^talk 22:17, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Nacht der Untoten/Strategies, Verruckt/Strategies, Shi No Numa/Strategies, Der Riese/Strategies, Kino der Toten/Strategies, and "Five"/Strategies Edit

All these articles just SCREAM subjective material. The topic of tactics/strategies has been brought about quite frequently as of late, so I feel these prime examples of such pages should be deleted.

Support — As nominator. Shotrocket6 ^Talk 18:07, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Support — Per nomination. Yüri Kaslov 18:11, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per Nomination. Doctor Richtoffee ^{Userpage · User Talk} 18:19, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — Articles are fine. I've used tactics from at least one of those articles and it's got me farther through the level. There's nowhere else to put this information which can be valuable to readers.  Callofduty4 ^Octavia  19:50, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

There isn't anything in those articles that can't be transferred to their respective level pages that falls under acceptable content, referring to objective or non-subjective material, which those pages do not contain. Shotrocket6 ^Talk 20:30, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

I forget who posted it, but someone said that "Three pages of subjective and opinionated material can be shaved down to a few well written paragraphs containing nothing but facts." I find this very true, and as such, anything that supposedly helped you in zombies through a Tactics page could be converted into a factual format and placed on the page, with room to spare. Shotrocket6 ^Talk 16:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose — These aren't even independent pages, they're subpages from the zombie pages. Deleting them would serve no purpose, they don't cause any trouble and are quite helpful for those into Nazi zombies. Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 11:11, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

These are subpages? In that case we should keep them. I did not realize that. I'm going to change my vote. Thanks for pointing that out, Smuff.

So what if they're subpages? They're still part of the mainspace. I literally have no idea why the fact that they're subpages should sway your decision whatsoever; subpages are there for the purpose that the section for the same thing on the main page was beginning to get too lengthy. Shotrocket6 ^Talk 16:52, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

It sways my decision because that just means they are redirects, and while they may be part of the mainspace, they are not independent. And really, those pages were to lengthy for a strategy guide to be placed there. Cpt. Dragunov 05:37, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I believe this is just deleting for the sake of it, we've had users come in all the time on IRC looking for strategy pages, (you aren't there much so you wouldn't know as much about the subject). If a user wants to find tactics, they are there. As I said before they cause little problem, don't spam up Recent Changes and are only there to help. Not only that, the pages are (somewhat) rather well written, the only thing I can see it that it is generally written around "you" rather than "the player," however that would most likely be a rather strange way to convey the information, so I see no problem with the pages what so ever. Smuff ^{[The cake is a lie.]} 20:01, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'll pretend you didn't just say that tactics pages are "well written".

In relation to the other thing, we're an encyclopaedia, not a self-help guide. Yüri Kaslov 20:03, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see with your argument is that "If a user wants to find tactics, they are there." If we have deleted many other tactic based pages with no opposition, what is so different about these six that makes you feel so strongly against their deletion? Shotrocket6 ^Talk 17:37, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — Per Smuff. Changed from Support. Cpt. Dragunov 00:50, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — Per all --Conqueror of all Zombies 00:27, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — Per COD4P90^Deathman00:20, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Article will not be deleted. Sactage (Talk)   05:45, January 16, 2011 (UTC)