Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Duty 4 (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. Simply, come back when the game is in the final stages of production/is planned to be released in the imminent (weeks) future/etc., when there's more non-speculative information verified in numerous reliable sources, and then recreate a fully-fledged article. -  Daniel.Bryant  10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Call of Duty 4

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing has been released about the game. Article contains no references and is pure speculation; violates WP:CRYSTAL. Article was previous deleted, found here: Articles for deletion/Call of Duty 4, and probably remade by a new editor who wanted to jump the gun. Recommend Speedy Delete. Scottie theNerd 13:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie theNerd 13:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting notable content is asking for recreation.  This is not a case of WP:CRYSTAL.  There are 234,000 hits for Call of Duty 4.  People are talking about it; reliable sources are covering it ... ergo, it is notable.  The article is well within its rights to cover the speculation provided it doesnt stray into WP:OR. John Vandenberg 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources? A Google search brings up forum posts containing speculation. There is no official statement from the developers at the official site, nor does the site even have a section for COD4. There is no notable content, nothing about the game has been released. As per standard procedure, delete the article to prevent misinformation and remake the article when actual information has been released. The nomination is for WP:CRYSTAL, not WP:N. Articles should not be written based on speculation alone. If nothing about the game has been released, then speculation is obviously a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --Scottie theNerd 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL's first sentence is Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. With 234,000 hits for Call of Duty 4 it is definitely verifiable speculation.  Note that I havent said verified speculation; there are tags to request verification. John Vandenberg 14:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. Why can't people wait for an official announcement? Thunderbrand 14:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete It is too early to say anything. This article should be re-created when Infinity Ward makes an announcement regarding the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.118.187 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 18 February 2007
 * Delete per crystalballing. Also the fact that the article contains [rumor] is a good indication of OR and crystalballing. --Tainter 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Take off and delete from orbit. Author seems to have confused verifying the existence of speculation with verifying its content. ShaleZero 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the author can site his/her references then it could be an article. :^) §†SupaSoldier†§  19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as crystal-balling. Any sub-stub containing "not much is known" when referring to the subject is self-explanatory. There's no need for contributors to play journalist and sniff around the rumour-mills, as soon as there's anything concrete available on the game, the publicity will be as subtle as a curvy bunnygirl bursting from an oversized birthday cake. QuagmireDog 19:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (for now) as unreferenced speculation Although I'm sure there is speculation on internet forums and blogs about this game, what the article needs is published articles from reliable sources (which blogs and internet forums aren't).  Delete this article as unreferenced speculation unless it is ammended to include reliable, published references talking about the game in a non-trivial way.  If no such sources currently exist, then hold off recreating the article until more official info is available.Dugwiki 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Amoungst the first page of google hits I found, in which Bobby Kotick, chairman and CEO of Activision tells Tor Thorsen @ GameSpot that there really truely will be another installment in 2007/08. With a bit more looking, I found , an interview with Grant Collier, President and CEO of Infinity Ward indicating they are definately working on number 4. I am sure there is more WP:RS on which to base an article. John Vandenberg 21:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those sound like a good start. Add them to the article and I'll reconsider the delete recommendation. Dugwiki 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Please bear in mind that I have no care for this subject, so I am sure someone more interested can find more sources and expand the article given time.  It is a tagged as a stub for that reason. John Vandenberg 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I struck out my Delete recommendation and will instead recommend Keep pending stub expansion. I'm pretty sure the franchise is well known enough that it will probably generate a fair amount of press in the near term, so I'll give it some benefit of the doubt that the stub will be expanded slowly over time.  I think it would also help if some of the additional information about the game from the published articles can be added in the meantime, so the stub isn't just a couple of sentences.  Dugwiki 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at the infobox on ; there are a few unsourced facts in that previous version; do you think its reasonable to duplicate that infobox and sprinkle with cn ? John Vandenberg 22:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources don't seem enough. The GameSpot is a good source, but doesn't establish any notable content and only hints at the existence of the game in development. The CODHQ source is better, but again it only confirms the game's existence and reveals no information at all. The Neowin article, on the other hand, is not a reliable source: it's a forum post based on an unknown leak. Even though the existence of the game in development is now unquestionable, there is still nothing about the game itself to warrant an article. There's no need to jump the gun here; wait for an official announcement in published sources before creating the article. If we keep the article with what scraps of information we have now, it's going to be a speculation magnet. --Scottie theNerd 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, it probably will exist, based on the sources provided. However, the game is not yet notable as the sources are trivial. "It exists" and "it will exist" are enough to add a game to the GameFAQs database, but are not enough to add it to Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep There is minimal harm in having a truthful and referenced stub article for an upcoming game. The article clearly will be able to grow when the game nears release. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Indeed speculation. Usedup 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess the question is whether or not we should have a stub article about a game that we have confirmed sources for to indicate it is in fact under development, but about which we have very little other info. There are two ways to look at it, from what I can tell.  We could say "since we know the game is actually under development, and is part of a large enough franchise that it will certainly eventually have more information down the road, we can keep this article around as a stub for that information as it becomes available."  The flip side would be "since the only information we have is that the game is under development, it would be best to temporarily delete the article and maybe redirect to an appropriate related article until more information is available.  Otherwise we'll end up with a stub article that could become a frequent site for unreferenced rumors in the coming year."
 * Personally I'd lean toward keeping the stub since I'm sure the article will eventually be viable. But I can definitely understand the desire to delete until more info is available, so it's not an easy call. Dugwiki 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.