Revision as of 23:37, 23 December 2005

These pages are candidates for deletion by consensus. Please discuss each article on the appropriate article talk page - only edit this page to add or remove deletion candidates.

See NSwiki:Deletion policy for other types of deletion, including speedy deletion criteria.

To request that an article be deleted, please put an {{inclusion}} tag at the top of the article, post your reason for deletion on the article's talk page, and put the following under the current date (if the current date is not listed, post it below other dates):

=== [[PageToBeDeleted]] ([[Talk:PageToBeDeleted|add to this discussion]]) ===
{{Talk:PageToBeDeleted}}

where PageToBeDeleted is the name of the page you wish to delete. If the article is not posted to this page, the sysops may not see it and the article will not get deleted!

11 November 2005

AS-59 Space Launch Assist Aircraft (add to this discussion)

Will you actually be filling in all these empty articles of yours soon, ZMI? Just a suggestion rather than criticism, but maybe you should have left them as red links in an actual article until you had something to put in them. - Aridd, 4 November 2005.

Procedural nomination. --Goobergunch|? 21:27, 11 November 2005 (GMT)

I agree with Aridd, except for the whole "failure to add the article to NSwiki:Deletion" thing. Delete unless expanded. --Goobergunch|? 21:27, 11 November 2005 (GMT)

Logged from #nswiki:

<Gruenberg> oh, Doc, one of your blank articles has been tagged {{inclusion}}.

<Gruenberg> http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Talk:AS-59_Space_Launch_Assist_Aircraft

<Doc_Evilonavich> whut?

<Doc_Evilonavich> what manner of madness is this

<Doc_Evilonavich> ah

<Doc_Evilonavich> yes they will be

<Doc_Evilonavich> all of them

<Doc_Evilonavich> I just got back from hospital after doing a tomatoe man from a wasp sting

<Gruenberg> oh, ok.

<Doc_Evilonavich> so if you wouldnt mind going for the throat right away

<Doc_Evilonavich> but yes I will be adding to it

<Gruenberg> right.

<Doc_Evilonavich> it may take me a while but I have every intention of doing every last one of them

<Doc_Evilonavich> I do have at the very least images for all of them

However, I would urge that they be filled in quickly, and until they are, I support the deletion.Gruen2alk 22:33, 11 November 2005 (GMT)

Yah am slow at getting through these and if you feel it neccesary and would clear up the wiki feel free to delete them, its just eventually I will have to recreate them. Doc.

Deleted. Gruen2alk 09:23, 9 January 2006 (GMT)

13 November 2005

Jambuula (add to this discussion)

This stub appears of little value, given that the EPTO page states everything contained in it. As this is an ex-nation, I see little value in keeping it. However, some members may feel this nation has 'historic' status, and in the light of a comment on the EPTO regarding 'the Jambuuland hostage incident' or some such, it may be possible to add to this article. However, in its present state, I do not see any point retaining it.Gruen2alk 03:41, 13 November 2005 (GMT)

• I vote redirect to East Pacific Treaty Organization. --Goobergunch|? 03:38, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

• Wouldn't that get confusing? If someone was searching for Jambuula, and they got a redirect to a region page, that wouldn't be good, especially if they were a new user. Of course, we could add a little disclaimer to the region page, but that still could get confusing. I vote delete. → Ceo\squawk 06:21, December 24, 2005 (GMT)

Redirected. Gruen2alk 09:22, 9 January 2006 (GMT)

14 November 2005

Official names of the USTsR (add to this discussion)

Ok, I do not see the point in this. A whole page, full of dead links, just on names for a NATION STUB in languages which haven't been given Wiki articles yet? No, this strikes me as a monumental waste of space. I've added it to USTsR for the time being. Looks ugly, I know, but there is no content in that article. To waste a whole other page seems...bizarre.Gruen2alk 01:23, 14 November 2005 (GMT)

• Concur, delete. --Goobergunch|? 03:38, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

Deleted, and noted on Talk:USTsR. Gruen2alk 09:25, 9 January 2006 (GMT)

Commitment of improvement

I've decided to recreate this page now that I've finally got round to expanding the page it originally serves. I fully appreciate the reason for its original deletion, and can only apologise and regret that I didn't sort this out earlier.

This page was originally created to mimic a similar page on the Wikipedia site - the article on the Soviet Union had a "Official names of the Soviet Union" page in exactly the same fashion. But now I think - and I agree, only now, that the same thing is worth its space here. This was the first thing I did for the USTsR page originally - and then I got caught up in other things and never got round to finishing it - until now. Bare with me, you'll see those red links disappear! But I think you'll agree, the information here doesn't quite fit in properly with what is now on the USTsR.

If you disagree, please contact me, and I'll try and sort something out. --ZedderZulu 14:15, 21 January 2006 (GMT)

TechWiki (add to this discussion)

Unless there's a bigger explanation about this Wiki planned for this article, it seems too much like an advertisement to be included on NSwiki. Plus, the editor of this page is only editing through an IP username, which means we can't communicate with you in order to see what exactly these plans are - hopefully you do post here, though. If you can help us by elaborating this article a little bit more, I'll remove the inclusion and stub tags. --Pacitalkia 22:41, 14 November 2005 (GMT)

Since no pages link to this one, it doesn't really seem like it belongs here. ~ Ceorant (or rave) 23:22, November 17, 2005 (GMT)

Although I didn't write this article I can expand upon it if you would like. (Unsigned comment by User:Macabees → Ceo\squawk 04:46, December 2, 2005 (GMT))

The person who wrote it is the player of Space Union. Maybe a TG to him would be in order? → Ceo\squawk 04:46, December 2, 2005 (GMT)

If his last edit was within the last 60 days, message him on his userpage. If not, TG him through NS. He still is active (we're in an alliance together). --Pacitalkia 05:15, 2 December 2005 (GMT)

The TechWiki appears dead. I'm deleting this. Gruen2alk 09:26, 9 January 2006 (GMT)

The TechWiki itself doesn't seem that active. If it dies a death, then this article would cease to serve a point. Perhaps we should see what happens with that? Gruen2alk 11:36, 2 December 2005 (GMT)

In all actuality I'm the administration and webmaster to TechWiki and so I would be best to finish this article since I know what I'm talking about when it comes to what TechWiki stands for. Regardless, the issue of inactivity has some grounds, but then again, I haven't been trying my hardest to get it active since I really don't know much about Wiki and am still learning. Nonetheless, it's really up to the NSWiki sysops. Macabees 17:12, 6 December 2005 (GMT)

{{inclusion}} debates are for all NSwiki community members, not just sysops. The point is: if TechWiki is going to be active, and if the article on NSwiki is filled out accordingly, I could see a point to the article remaining. Afterall, we have an article on NSTracker. But if the TechWiki isn't going to be active, then the article won't serve much point. In short, I'd advocate waiting. There's no immediate dash to remove the article. I vote keep, but also keep this debate open, and assess things a little later. Gruen2alk 19:00, 6 December 2005 (GMT)

15 November 2005

The Act of Union of the United Kingdom of Egypt and Sudan add to this discussion

Blanked by an IP that looks similar to the starter's. I have reverted to Fris's edit, but I really see no value in keeping it if the contributor doesn't want it. I am just unwary about deleting such a substantial page without consensus. Gruen2alk 22:53, 15 November 2005 (GMT)

16 November 2005

Samson Incorporated (add to this discussion)

Deletion discussion

This discussion is now closed. The inclusion tag was removed by 9 January 2005 on ~~~~~, as there was consensus to keep the article. The debate below serves as a record and should not be edited, as it is no longer live. Please start a new section to discuss the article. --Goobergunch|? 20:11, 9 January 2006 (GMT)

Not sure if this is a speedy or not. The page had no content except for a category, and now an inclusion tag. ~ Ceorant (or rave) 22:18, November 16, 2005 (GMT)

This is another TBC from Doc Evilonavich. Again, unless it is filled in soon, I see no reason to keep it around as a placeholder.Gruen2alk 10:09, 17 November 2005 (GMT)

Since content has been added, I think this discussion is irrelevant. Doc Evilonavich has also removed the inclusion tag. → Ceo \ squawk 19:11, 27 December 2005 (GMT)

2 December 2005

Candana (add to this discussion)

This nation no longer exists. The only links are from its cities and region page. I would put a speedy deletion tag on, but since it has links, I think it needs a discussion. → Ceo\squawk 23:01, December 2, 2005 (GMT)

I would support a delete. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 15:03, 30 January 2006 (GMT)

3 December 2005

UN Mandate (add to this discussion)

Nominated for deletion.

Utterly irrelevant to the NSUN; all information anyway contained within one link on the Jolt forums; purely the opinions of one player; confusing, misleading, and wrong with regard to the NSUN. This is the NSwiki; articles about the RL UN serve no purpose here. Gruen2alk 18:23, 3 December 2005 (GMT)

Delete and don't come back, for reasons stated above. RL =/= NS. → Ceo\squawk 19:07, December 3, 2005 (GMT)

• Get this crap out of here. It has nothing to do with the NSUN and is utterly irrelevent. Hack 02:39, 12 January 2006 (GMT)

Keep, but rework into something that is actually useful. Could be interesting in conjunction with the World government entry. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 12:19, 23 December 2005 (GMT)

• This used to be a sticky, actually. Keep unless the original thread is located. --Goobergunch|? 03:36, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

Original thread? This is linked from the article's first line. Not sure if there's something else.

In any case, I'm going to have to disagree. Whilst it may have been Stephistan's place to once dictate mandate in this manner, it certainly is not now, and the article as such is dangerous and misleading. It starts with an entirely fallacious, unproven supposition: 'it is certainly not rocket science to assume that the founder of the game Max Barry did intend for it to be in line with the real world'. Yet how many times are we told issue choices are exaggerated? How obvious is it the NSUN operates in a completely different manner to the RL UN?

'The United Nations was established on 24 October 1945 by 51 countries committed to preserving peace through international cooperation and collective security. Today, nearly every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 191 countries*.' Nope. The UN was established on November 12/13 (disputable) 2002, by 1 or 3 (again, disputable) nations. Today, only about a quarter of every nation in the world belongs to the UN: membership totals 30,826 nations. The UN is committed to 'improving the world one step at a time'. At no time has a commitment to 'collective security' ever been formally established. Nor, for that matter, has preserving peace been formally enshrined, except to the extent that adding war is banned. But a proposal calling for military action on states who violated $human_right would be legal. The very first resolution passed was hardly 'committed to preserving peace'.

'When States become Members of the United Nations, they agree to accept the obligations of the UN Charter, an international treaty that sets out basic principles of international relations. According to the Charter, the UN has four purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.' Charter has no effect on the NSUN; people who mention the charter in the UN forum are mocked for doing so; references to the charter in proposals are illegal.

'The United Nations is not a world government and it does not make laws. It does, however, provide the means to help resolve international conflicts and formulate policies on matters affecting all of us. At the UN, all the Member States — large and small, rich and poor, with differing political views and social systems — have a voice and a vote in this process.' Cf. 'The UN is the world's governing body', UN main page. Furthermore, resolution of international conflicts is not essential to the NSUN: it's just something that might crop out of repealable resolutions.

'Through UN efforts, governments have concluded many multilateral agreements that make the world a safer, healthier place with greater opportunity and justice for all of us. This comprehensive body of international law, including human rights law, is one of the UN's great achievements.' NPOV.

'International Security'. No evidence to support the suppositions of this section. Further, the UN currently allows possession of nuclear and chemical weaponry. Also highly NPOV.

'Human Rights'. UDHR, IBR, etc. do not exist in NS. Closest thing would be the UBR, which can be repealed.

'International Law'. ICL & UNCITL do not exist in NS. The UNEP doesn't exist; desertification has never been addressed. No recreational drug resolution has ever passed. The Law of the Sea was declared illegal. The Security Council doesn't exist in NS. The terrorist acts mentioned never occurred in NS, and the NSUN has never acknowledged them, because it can't.

'Ending Impunity'. ICJ failed.

'Other Action for Justice and Equal Rights'. RL, RL, and oh yeah, RL.

'Human Welfare'. EcoSoc doesn't exist.

'So, in conclusion we can see that the U.N. does affect not domestic policy unless a people are in need of it. We see this happen every day in the real world when countries are unable to solve their own domestic problems and it becomes a crisis. As well we see the U.N. as a body does have a wide range of responsibilities that one would think outside the mandate of the U.N.

For the U.N. inside the game to be a fun and realistic experience we must try to keep it real. Stay as close to the real world as we can, because otherwise you might as well be playing Dungeons & Dragons.' Bollocks to that, I'm afraid. This is a game. It is not for this article to dictate to people how to play it. This whole thing cropped in the Sapient Rights debate. Furthermore, 'the UN does not affect domestic policy unless a people are in need of it'? There's a few resolution authors I'd very much like to tell that to. But I can't, as it's not true.

If the consensus is keep, I will completely rewrite this. It does not belong on NSwiki, as it has no relevance to NationStates. Yours festively, Gruen2alk 20:34, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

Since the original thread is located, I withdraw my vote. I'm for keeping archives of historically significant content, but there's no need for duplication of material between NSwiki and the NationStates forum. --Goobergunch|? 20:14, 9 January 2006 (GMT)

Consensus

The vote is 4-1. Since the opponent is a sysop, who can still view the deleted edit, I've deleted it. I will sort out links. Gruen2alk 20:58, 12 January 2006 (GMT)

Agree with choice to delete. I'll clean up the links. - Fris 00:43, 30 January 2007 (GMT)

23 December 2005

Constitution of Rammsteinburg (add to this discussion)

This article has been completely devoid of any content but the page structure since May. I dare challenge if there every will be an addition of that kind, so deletion would seem to be in order. --|Knoot|KNOOtalk 12:17, 23 December 2005 (GMT)

• Delete. If it's been there for seven months with no content, it's probably not going to go anywhere. The editor can always recreate it if necessary. → Ceo\squawk 18:50, December 23, 2005 (GMT)
• Delete. Agreed with Ceo on this one. --Pacitalkia 20:47, 23 December 2005 (GMT)
• Delete. Gruen2alk 20:45, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

Deleted. Gruen2alk 09:28, 9 January 2006 (GMT)

Civfanatica Region (add to this discussion)

I'm a little skeptical that a puppet recruiter stub belongs in NSwiki. → Ceo\squawk 01:12, December 24, 2005 (GMT)

• Delete. Agreed. Can be merged with Civfanatica if necessary. Gruen2alk 20:45, 24 December 2005 (GMT)

Deleted. Gruen2alk 09:30, 9 January 2006 (GMT)