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 , early closure per WP:SNOW. Marasmusine (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: Evolution of Online Multiplayer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While there is no denying that Call of Duty is a force of nature in the video-game world, I come to question the necessity of a complete overview of the entire series while good information is already provided on the articles for individual games in the series itself. Ultimately, I find that this article breaches WP:GAMEGUIDE as well as general notability requirements, with much of the content sounding like a glowing advertisement for the game itself. Given, if the article can prove itself to be encyclopedic and useful for series-coverage as a whole, this article should be kept. But in its current form, the article is more apropos for the Call of Duty Wiki. Marlith (Talk) 00:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I also think that certain parts of the article are copyvio. Perk descriptions seem to come from the game itself, if my memory serves me right. Marlith (Talk) 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was a school project apparently. I don't know why this wasn't kept to userspace. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently a school project that has gone amok. Non-encyclopedic content with only end refs that do not at all support the text of the article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V and probably WP:SPAM as well. What concerns me even more is the gratuitous "pats on the back" under the guise of "peer reviews" by other students at Talk:Call of Duty: Evolution of Online Multiplayer. In reading them it is clear that they all either don't understand the first principles of Wikipedia or are just plumping each other for better marks on this project. The talk page content fails WP:NOTBLOG, but fortunately the talk page will go when the article goes. In tracking the members of this school project overall their contributions to Wikipedia have been more disruptive than anything else. - Ahunt (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, that's a common part of online courses. An assignment will require a student to submit their project and then comment on other student's projects, providing feedback for the students and simulating participation, so the teacher can take another bong hit and finish getting 100% on GTA IV. This was for a brick and mortar school though, so I'm not sure why they did it... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much my take on it too. Questions were asked of the instructor, but no answers were forthcoming. The semester is now over I guess, all that remains is the sweeping up. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. It was thrown together. Szzuk (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete for reasons already listed. While someday an well sourced article analyzing the evolution of CoD's multiplayer could be feasible, there's nothing here that can be used in that article. --Teancum (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.