Call of Duty Wiki:Articles for Deletion

Archives 19 April 2008 - 10 December 2008 10 December 2008 - 20 June 2009 20 June 2009 - (Listed by closing date.)

Articles for Deletion is where anyone can nominate an article to be deleted for whatever reason, and everyone decides if it should. To bring the article up for deletion, add "{{deletion}}" to the top of the respective article, and make a subsection on this page about it.

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

Call of Duty 3 multiplayer classes

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support as nominator I think there rely is no point in this article i have made a page for each of the classes and a template. Klemenkin 11:49, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Comment of some sort - Well I think it would be better to merge it, butI have a way to fix it up if we dicide to keep it. Why don't we actually WRITE something on it?? Theres not a WORD there!!! So, in the time being, how about we make some words!?

5.7x28mm

Support	1
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)

Browning .30 cal

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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

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

9x19mm

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

This has been overlooked for some time. There are two articles for the same thing. The other article is called 9x19 Parabellum.

Support as nominator     

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

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

Katushya rocket

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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

Support as nominator General Cod1 ^Talk

Support only referenced in one line in COD5.     

Well, it was already merged, but I'd like to say that they also appear multiple times in the Finest Hour Russian campaign. So, they aren't only seen a few times in World at War. Anywho, even if they were only mentioned once or twice, we should still have an article on them. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 22:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Kiefer Sutherland

Support	5
Neutral	0
Oppose	2

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

Support as nominator     

Opposed , Famous actor voicing a role in a Call of Duty game, its fine Errettung^RetiredMod

Oppose - He does the voice in CoD:WaW, and the article here is perfectly fine, no reason to delete. --I Ross I 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, the article is in pretty bad shape, but if it were fixed and some info added, I think it would be pretty good. --I Ross I 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support The article is in terrible shape, we could just link to Wikipedia, and we don't need an article on him in the first place. File:1911A1iwi.png Akyoyo ^Talk 22:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I would agree that the article should be deleted. It does not have enough info, to even really be classified as a stub. It has nothing on it. Attack Rhino 23:26, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support It's a dead article that shows no signs of getting any better. WouldYouKindly 02:01, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Support One of my favorite actors, but there's no need for an article on him, and the article is in terrible shape. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 02:33, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Uh...why does this thing still exist? We brought this up how long ago? And everyone knows how badly the page sucks. Can someone get rid of it already?

Comment - right on that, getting an admin… Attack Rhino 08:03, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - this article is relevant to COD, it just needs some fixing up--Bigm2793 12:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - (To me) there is nothing to fix up, as there is nothing on the page. It does not have anything in it, and I assume that it never really will. All it says is that Sutherland voices Roebuck, it would be better to just say that in Roebucks page, instead of wasting space and slowing down everything. Attack Rhino 22:33, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Category:Modern Warfare 2

Support: 1

Neutral/Pending: 0

Oppose: 0

This category and both of its subcategories (Modern Warfare 2 Characters and Modern Warfare 2 Weapons) are not used by any articles. They are redundant and break the scheme addressing all products by their full title, such as Category:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. FarmerBob12 17:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Support This category is useless and makes things confusing ElFuser 19:07, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Call of Duty Wiki: Blocking Policy

Support	4
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

This page is not remotely accurate in regards to our blocking policy. Besides, I feel that having a strict policy in regards to blocking will handicap the admin's ability to effectively deal with vandals and the like.

Support as nominator. Darkman 4 19:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support --Cpl. Callofduty4 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Opposed Its not like its followed anyway. Looking back at how blocks are dealed with on this wiki since I wrote that more than a year ago blocks are stricter than what the policy dictates, not the other way around. Saying that you guys should re do it, not delete it, so admins have a policy to follow, not do whatever the hell they feel like to win an argument against a non authority, which Ive seen done several times, with Admins not acting like admins but acting like children when they block Errettung^RetiredMod

Support - this was never approved by the community but was instead instituted by another user as their own personal opinion. Most admins prefer to block on a case by case basis--Bigm2793 19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It was actully, you me and Chia decided we needed one and I wrote the basis and you guys were spouse to revise it as time went on. Chia approved it, and it was on a working basis, you were spouse to be re working it. But Ofc this never happened. It was after we got complaints that people were getting blocked because their opinions were not shared and it was considered vandalism when it wasnt. Its completley untrue to say it wasnt approved because it was. And you know it was too. Blociking on a case by case basis is a flawed policy, as admins don't always use good judgement and in the heat of the moment and block when there was no clear reason to block. And this wiki hasn't shown that Admins can block with good judgement. Blocks on this wiki make new users feel uncomfortable, that they cant say what they think should be included because a person with power doesnt agree. Thats the sad truth, and a blocking policy will keep admins in check to prevent new users from being alienated. Errettung^RetiredMod

I love I've still got a bit of influence left. Bigm wont reply because he didnt know I was going to come back and show that you were one of the people who thought we needed one. And than when I wrote it instead of you, you freaked. You tried to get it deleated but I come back and completly stop it. I love to still have influence. And try to follow what you said in the first place not change it a year later. Afk for awhile again. Errettung^RetiredMod

Support - It's about time this got wrapped up. Blocks should be case-by-case. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  14:58, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Edward (Doctor's assistant)

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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

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

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

Mad Catz

I don't really understand why there is an article on this. This is more like an advertisement for Mad Catz. Just because they make accessories related to the game doesn't mean they deserve an article. --I Ross I 22:34, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support	5
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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

Support - Makes sense, as per reasons above. ----  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk 02:21, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Article is useless, almost no actual COD-related info on it, and what little there it is already on the MW2 page. WouldYouKindly 02:30, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think the atrocious grammar on the article (all two sentences of it) is another good reason to get rid of it ("a mice"? WTF?) WouldYouKindly 20:03, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Yeah, I don't see why we need this article. --CallofDuty4 16:49, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I can see the how this article might be good for describing the MW2 accessories made by them, but at this point its just useless. Darkman 4 20:30, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

World Timeline

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

This article is poorly formatted, is full of bad spelling and grammar, and for the most part already exists (in a much better form) on Call of Duty series timeline. What little separate information it does include can be merged onto this article.

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

Support- It was already deleted once, I have no idea who remade it, but he didn't bother to improve it. WouldYouKindly 22:36, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Merge and redirect - Per above. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 23:44, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Mi-12

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

I'll try to keep this short. The article in question is about a helicopter that isn't even in any of the COD games (it even says so in the article). I'm not even sure what it's doing here in the first place. Not to mention it's only three sentences long and has very little relevant information to the helicopter itself anyway.

Support - As nominator. WouldYouKindly 00:31, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

It qualifies for speedy deletion. I'll go ahead and delete it. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 00:46, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Challenge Completion Guide: Tips & Strategies

Appears to be an orphan page, with little relevance.

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

Karachi

Another orphan article I've encountered, I'm not sure of the relevance of this either. Apologies if you could easier speedy them as admins, I'm not too good with the speedy policy of this Wiki Thanks, Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 19:36, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a map that's been confirmed for Modern Warfare 2. It will of course be edited again with more information next week, so leave it be for now. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 23:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Alright, cool, I was a little unsure whether it was correct, or something based on speculation, but it's confirmed, sorry for the nuisance. Thanks, Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 23:25, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

EMP Killstreak Modern Warfare 2

It's entirely from a 1st person view, all it does is describe a YouTube video, sharing their thoughts of speculation, it's titled wrong, poorly formatted, and generally doesn't make sense if you saw it / skimmed it / read it.

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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

Support - my first reaction was: "what?" I think it sums up the fact that it is not needed, per what Aky said. Attack Rhino 08:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

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

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

This article's in terrible shape, it has terrible formatting and spelling/grammar/punctuation, and just does not seem like an appropriate article to begin with. Plus, look at the title. I think this page should be taken down, but of course that could just be my opinion.

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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

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

Support - I was just reading it and the AoD popped up when I refreshed the page. I agree, it is poorly written and formatted. Seems more fitted for someones's user page. Chief z 04:28, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It's a badly made page and therefore should be deleted.--Poketape 04:33, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Single Player levels

I have noticed two different duplicate Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 single player levels - S.S.D.D. vs. S.S.D.D. S.S.D.D. is the better of the two. And Team Player vs. Team Player (level). Those two are pretty much equal in quality. Just doing this to bring these to attention.

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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

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

P.S. You put your signature twice, Saint. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  16:07, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. And yeah, that happens some times when I accidentally type four tildes instead of five. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M)

Explosive tip crossbow

What exactly does this have to do with Call of Duty? It's basically just a grainy picture and an explanation on how there's nothing on the page.

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

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

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

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

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

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 voice actors

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

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

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

Support - We've been through this before. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  16:16, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Completely unnecessary. I'll take care of it. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 16:23, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

M1126

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

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator Chief z 09:43, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, so i just updae that article. And maybe can do a shortcut M1126 to Stryker?

Doesn't count for deletion, I'll just change it into a redirect page. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  16:18, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Active Clans

I'm sorry, but this feels like more of a "belongs in the Forums, rather" type of article. Plus, it's incredibly short, and has some 1st person message up at the top.

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

Support - as nominator. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  04:22, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the first person message, and the list will grow. It's partially useful, because some people use the clan tag feature just to add some random stuff in front of their gamertag, instead of representing their clan. Sorry if this wasn't where I was supposed to disagree.

Disagree EightOhEight 04:53, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

'"Support"' i-intelligence-i 08:21, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Support and Closed I will move all of this information to a Forum and delete the page. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 03:56, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Hey!

Has nothing to do with CoD and makes no sense.

Support	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

Support - As nominator. Chief z 14:39, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Uh... what? Supercancer 21:46, December 4, 2009 (UTC) _{nomination already closed}

Closed - Article qualified for speedy deletion and was deleted last night.--WouldYouKindly 21:50, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Call of duty Classic

I don't think the "classic" version really deserves its own page. It's just a DLC port of CoD 1. Reflex edition probably deserves its own page, but, meh...this is just a clone of the same game on the internet, basically. It would be like making a page for the Mac ports of Call of Duty.

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	1

Support - as nominator. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  23:20, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay because It is a call of duty game —Unsigned comment was added by Pantherrfan09

Support - I agree, but it should be transferred to the CoD1 page. T C E 05:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Support - This page could easily be merged with the original Call of Duty page, unless it contains something incredibly unique. --Ant423 22:33, December 19, 2009 (UTC)Ant423

Support - I agree 100%, I even talked about it on the talk page, but it got earased. --7th Body 22:30, January 5, 2010 (UTC) 7th Body --7th Body 22:30, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Haggerty

Extremely unnecessary, and very short.

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator T C E 06:12, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support - He's probably just a randomly generated character, and I don't like this article. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  02:24, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Probably just randomly generated, and it's a terrible article. I'll take a look and delete if necessary. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 18:37, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Macey

Also unnecessary, probably by the same editor. These articles would be better in a compilation of characters with no role.

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	5

Support - As nominator T C E 06:20, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - God, I hate this article. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  02:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - My argument as editor is that the name Macey is not random, that he and Keating always appear in the level S.S.D.D and are always playing basketball, without one, the other is useless. The article may or may not be better than it is now if you give it a chance. But Macey is always going to be in the game programmed to that one place alongside Keating no matter what. Lotsi 02:44, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with the above user, Macey is a unique character model, and he is notable for being one of the basketball guys so I don't mind if this article stays. --Ant423 03:42, December 18, 2009 (UTC)Ant423

Support - Just because he appears every time in the level does not mean he does anything notable. Fairly sure this qualifies for speedy deletion, actually, but I'll leave it up for discussion. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 18:38, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose So is Morgan, Sandler and Vaughan they all their own pages so why not Macey or Keating especially as these two are names of Infinty Ward staff.AdvancedRookie 16:16, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Sandler and Vaughan actually do something important to the game. Morgan shouldn't have his page, nor should all those TF141 characters that do nothing but appear in the level. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 19:50, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - We are here to cover the whole Call of Duty series; every character and aspect of it. Per COD:G and COD:CR, we'll document him, O'Bryant, Peas, Henderson, Dawkins, Fahey, and anyone else with a static name. Server space is never an issue, and there isn't a single downside to documenting him. It's like Halopedia with L. P. B. and L. Jenkins. They are official characters inside the universe that we are trying to create an immense encyclopedia on. We have no choice but to document him. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - He is a major enough character, he always appears with the same appearance in two missions, S.S.D.D. and Of Their Own Accord. I strongly agree with Chiafriend12. CoD addict 03:52, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

George Washington (In universe)

So there are some portraits of him in that one house in Exodus. Does he really deserve a page?

Support	6
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - as nominator. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  05:38, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

STRONG FREAKIN' SUPPORT A very useless article. Peter Griffen Boy 21:52, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - He is also seen in wiskey hotel along with pictures of other presidents, but I agree with Peter Griffen Boy it is a very useless article. General Cod1 ^Talk 3:22, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Completely irrellevant. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 18:05, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support     19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Totally pointless, no question about it. --Gmanington MCCCXLII 20:56, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Is he ever mentioned? If he were to be mentioned by someone with accordance to the portrait, that would be one thing. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I agree. Maybe he could be mentioned on the artical Exodus, but no, it doesn't deserve a page. --7th Body 21:13, January 8, 2010 (UTC) 7th Body --7th Body 21:13, January 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	2
Neutral	0
Oppose	2

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 - COD:G. 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)

Sgt. Yuri Gargarin

Before I begin, let me just say that I haven't played CoD2 before. But, chances are, if he was a major character, he would have already had a page. And, this page has his rank in the name. Big no-no, a sign that the editor that made it isn't that experienced. Also,the page is in general bad shape.

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Suppport - as nominator. Also, if this doesn't pass, can someone at least move the page to the appropriate name? But wait until the voting is done. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  17:46, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - He's just a randomly generated character, so I'll go ahead and delete the article now. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 18:23, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per All     19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Just butting in, but I doubt he's even a random character. I don't recall ever seeing someone with "Gargarin" as a last name. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Challenger 2

Not only is this article a page copied out of the encyclopedia, or maybe the dictionary, but...what the HELL does this have to do with anything in Call of Duty? If it does, then why doesn't someone...mention it? Just look at it if you need more reason.

Support	3
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - as nominator. --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  17:57, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Completely irrelevant. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 18:24, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Irrelevant to COD.    19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, there is actually a choice of reason for deletion which is "Irrelevant to "CoD". I think it fits under that.    19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Watermelon

There are also oranges. And dinner plates. And things that you shoot at, and knife. This does not deserve an article, but I put it up for discussion anyway.

Support	4
Neutral	0
Oppose	0

Support - As nominator. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 18:27, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It's just an interactive object. No point of a page really.     19:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support - could've sworn I already tagged this for speedy deletion... --  Ari "Akyoyo" MacIsaac · Talk  06:58, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It's just an object, completely pointless just to even write about it. Braden 0.0 ^Talk 03:59, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Keating (MW2)

For the same reasons as Macey.

Support	1
Neutral	0
Oppose	4

Support - As nominator. SaintofLosAngelesXD(M) 18:40, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Like Macey, I think this one should stay. --Ant423 00:30, December 21, 2009 (UTC)Ant423

Oppose - Basically the same as Macey, he's not random and he's always there.

Oppose - Per my reasoning with Macey. COD:G and such. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - He is a major enough character, he always appears with the same appearance in two missions, S.S.D.D. and Of Their Own Accord. He also speaks directly to Allen, and is voiced by Robert Bowling. Same with Macey, minus the speaking part and being voiced by Bowling. Sign your posts, number 3. 03:52, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

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. COD:G. Sgt. Chiafriend^Rifleman 21:42, December 23, 2009 (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 existance. 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

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)