NSWiki:Deletion
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!
Contents
21 February 2006
Age of imperialism (Defuniak) (add to this discussion)
Procedural nomination - put up for deletion by User:Macabees. Personally, I'd say delete as nonsense. Gruen2alk 01:31, 21 February 2006 (GMT)
The author did not give the date of when this particular era. --Constantina 14:34, 2 March 2006 (GMT)
I'd say contact the author and ask what he intends to do with this. Ceo \ rant \ rave 02:11, 16 March 2006 (GMT)
The author was anonymous, and under that IP made only this single contribution. Nothing links here (nor to the redirect page), and there is no Defuniak article. The nation Defuniak doesn't exist (or no longer exists). This article looks a lot like nonsense. Seems like a valid candidate for deletion. Aridd 02:10, 7 November 2006 (GMT)
Arab-Egypt Embassy (add to this discussion)
I'd like to raise the issue of these sort of pages. Puppets, the sole point of which is to act as a puppet in this function, surely do not merit whole pages to themselves.
What do we think about making a new policy on this? Perhaps such pages should only be made if the nation in question has attained such noteworthy gameplay/RP status?
Oh, and delete whatever. ~Gruen2 09:21, 30 April 2006 (GMT)
- Either delete, or merge into Arab League. And yes, agreed. Aridd 02:05, 7 November 2006 (GMT)
19 July 2006
Governments (add to this discussion)
I don't think we need this and UN Category. Also, it's slightly misleading to call it "Governments". The UN category is defined by (d'uh) the UN, and doesn't actually say what kind of government it is (in the sense of whether it's a multi-party republic, a constitutional monarchy, a parliamentary one-party theocratic republic or whatever). Aridd 10:09, 19 July 2006 (GMT)
- One thing this article includes is a few links to more detailed articles on specific UN Categories. In general, I agree with you, but I'd like to suggestion we add links in the UN Category article to those more specific articles. Mikitivity 15:50, 19 July 2006 (GMT)
- Done. I've added links (in UN Category) to government types, and to the only article on a UN Category (New York Times Democracy). Aridd 16:13, 19 July 2006 (GMT)
Now that's done, is there any reason to keep this article? Aridd 23:10, 1 October 2006 (GMT)
- No. ~Gruen2alk 14:35, 31 October 2006 (GMT)
- If there are no further comments and no objections, I'll delete shortly. Aridd 12:07, 7 November 2006 (GMT)
7 November 2006
Template:Feedback (add to this discussion)
I'm nominating this for deletion because, well, of course the authors want constructive feedback! It's a wiki! Anyone can march right in and improve the article. Plus, this makes articles look ugly. Ceoranta 02:11, 7 November 2006 (GMT)
- I agree. If people want to leave feedback there's the discussion page. I don't see the point in "panhandling" for feedback with a template.--Pantocratoria 04:48, 7 November 2006 (GMT)
- I don't see any harm in it. It simply means that the article's author will be specially receptive to feedback, which should encourage giving it. Keep. Aridd 14:13, 7 November 2006 (GMT)
- Agree with Aridd, as that is the intent of the feedback prefix plate in the first place. You can change the colour if you'd like, that's not really a big deal, considering that I only chose green because we were using peach for FACs, red for WIPs and light blue for featureds. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 20:10, 11 December 2006 (GMT)
Ugly, and since in a wiki editing is not limited to the page starter, this has no meaning. As Ceorana said, anyone can just go in and improve a wiki page. Delete --swilatia 12:38, 10 July 2007 (GMT)
- Re LE's suggestion: the idea is for this to be visible. It wouldn't have much purpose if moved to the talk page with a <includeonly>. Keep as is. Aridd 13:27, 10 July 2007 (GMT)
- I would keep - there's no harm in it, really, and noting that a page's major author (yes, anyone can edit the articles, but this is a wiki based on NS, so naturally the authority on a nation and nation concepts is going to be the NS player of the nation) is explicitly looking for advice and feedback could only help to develop articles... Bettering article quality is, surely, what we are all here for... --Germanalasia 15:51, 19 July 2007 (GMT)
Just a thought, but why don't we just change the message on the template? Right now its message is something that I'm sure we all figure is implied, since this is a Wiki-style encyclopedia. Some of us also agree that it should go on an article just so the idea of constructive feedback is out there.
I think that the message should be changed to something a whole lot stronger - or a WHOLE lot more emphasizing - than the casual "The author(s) of this article would like constructive feedback on its content." I'm not experienced at writing messages for templates, but it could go something like this instead: "The author(s) of this article strongly encourages constructive feedback on its content" or: "...would greatly appreciate constructive feedback..." You know, something instead of the simple "would like."
-America of Tomorrow 21:50, 27 July 2007 (GMT)
- That sounds reasonable... --Germanalasia 18:31, 17 August 2007 (GMT)
