Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Duty 5 (2nd 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 redirect to Call of Duty (series) until there is enough information from multiple sources to warrant a fleshed out stub ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Call of Duty 5
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems way to WP:CRYSTAL, source provided for this article seems to be a blog or forum. VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect to Call of Duty (series) until there's a lot more reliably sourced information to be said about it. --Stormie 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * furthermore, the Vivendi factsheet referenced in the article's source does not actually say "Call of Duty 5 is under development", it lists is as "in the pipeline" along with such things as "new DreamWorks titles, new Marvel titles". This does not necessarily mean it's under development, could just be in planning stages. --Stormie 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect: For now, until more information becomes available. - Rjd0060 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect per Stormie.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - It will be made, so should rest in the main article until there is enough for its own article. Judgesurreal777 01:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per nom; when more information becomes available, the article can be revived. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Striken per new information from SkyWalker. Wow, that was fast. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 13:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The IGN article SkyWalker linked is sourced from the same Vivendi factsheet I linked above - it does not confirm that any development is yet underway, just that COD 5 is one of the future plans "in the pipeline". --Stormie (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect: As the development of this game is already confirmed (IGN being a reliable source), this can be mentioned in the Call of Duty (series) article as mentioned above. No own article needed at this time. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "No own article needed at this time." - That doesn't make sense.--Svetovid 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Call of Duty (series). -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 08:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Ign confirmed that COD 5 is confirmed. --SkyWalker 11:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteI'm glad it's been confirmed. So has Commander Keen 7. I've been waiting for the latter for almost 15 years, but I'll tell you what, it ain't ever happening. When the section of the Call of Duty (series) article has grown to the point where it warrants its own article, that's when it should get one.--CastAStone|(talk) 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect As it is now, there is too little info for this to be an article by itself. We know the game will eventually be produced, but that's about it. Merge for now, until more substantial info is released in the coming months. Comandante42 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Confirmed, why bother deleting something when it's going to be improved on soon anyway. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - it's a confirmed game.--Svetovid (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect Even considering it is confirmed, there is very little information on what the game is or about. An article shouldn't just be "Such and such is a game that will be made and released for people to play." That's all the article is at this point, so it should redirect to the main Call of Duty series page until more information is known and the article can be more than a single, grammatically incorrect sentence with some links. --clpo13(talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please realize that deletion considerations are not about personal opinions.--Svetovid (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: You appear biased. The above user's decision for how this article should be handled isn't a personal opinion; he clearly states a logical reason for it.Comandante42 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And that is just your opinion. Please show me a guideline or policy that says that an article about a confirmed game cannot just say "Such and such is a game that will be made and released for people to play."--Svetovid (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It can't say that, unless there is proof. Any idea that this game will be made is speculation; the game has merely been announced, not confirmed that one day in the future it will actually exist. The article is at this point pure speculation save the name (which is itself subject to change), and is thus unfit to be an article by itself. I fail to see how temporarily merging the info until more concrete details are released isn't a satisfactory solution. For all we know, the game might be held up in development for whatever reason, and never be released. Nothing is definite here, and you can't just have speculation in an article for months on end until real facts can be added simply because there is nothing better to add at the time; such actions are stop-gap measures for articles that deserve to be deleted. Since long, drawn out debates bore me, I leave this as my final argument. Comandante42 (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - this game IS confirmed and IS coming out, probably within the next year or so. Knowitall (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep it's been confirmed by more than one site and more information will be added so why delete it when we're just going to add more information in future days to come? Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: The reality is that updates may not be forthcoming for months. Why jump the gun and have an empty article floating around until May or June? If we merge and redirect the article, we acknowledge the game's existence without creating leaving a blank page. As it is, the game has not even been confirmed for any game console or the PC; it has only been mentioned in a list of games lined up for production which may not even be released until the end of 2008, or possibly mid-2009. Everything but the game's name is speculation. Comandante42 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge 'n' Redirect:The article currently is too short, and insufficient information to include in this article as of now. Probably it can be expanded when more news is released.--Blackhawk charlie2003 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main series article, for now, and recreate as a seperate article when more info is available. The game is confirmed, and is definitely coming out, but that's all we know for now. Not enough info for a seperate article.Umlautbob (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree, it should be moved to the series article because even if its confirmed it doesnt't yet have enough info while it would be more apropriate to be included in the main series just like Call of Duty 4 was before it had more information. Mr.Deathhawk (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep This article just needs more time. The game has been announced. Within time, more details will become available. This is useful and notable. Cackalackakilla (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect This article is mostly speculation right now, so why keep it? Wait until the facts are released, which could be a while from now. Deltagreen23 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 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.