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:

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

where PageToBeDeleted is the name of the page you wish to delete.

January 13

USSR-ADN Trial/Text add to this discussion)

Deletion discussion

This discussion is now closed. The inclusion tag was removed by 15 May 2005 on ~~~~~, with no consensus to delete the article achieved. 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|? 16:27, 15 May 2005 (GMT)

Added to NSwiki:Deletion on 00:27, 13 Jan 2005 (GMT). Procedural nomination. --Goobergunch|?

This page is 56 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32KB. It also totally lacks any wiki links to other articles.

In addition, I'm quite sure that this document has been posted somewhere on the forums (be they NationStates or offsite) where this thing can easily be linked to instead of slowing down the wiki as per standing wiki policy.-- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 17:39, 30 Dec 2004 (GMT)

• Agreed. Rechze • (talk) 10:06, 13 Jan 2005 (GMT)
• Not really - Yet this was a major turning point in NS for many, and did change the ADN and NPO, who were the two major powers at the time. (unsigned edit by 68.56.172.224)
  • But is it available externally? Rechze • (talk) 03:36, 22 Jan 2005 (GMT)
• Concur with deletion. → Fris Θtalk 19:13, 22 Jan 2005 (GMT)
• Considering it is detailed elsewhere, and is copied here as a copious block of unsectioned, undivided and purely linear text, besides the space it consumes, this article strikes me as Wiki-unfriendly on the user level as well. To be quite frank, anyone wanting to refer to this would probably look at the lack of divisions and think "This'll take me ages, why bother?" Concur. IdioC- エドの狂いtalk 21:19, 22 Jan 2005 (GMT)

It is not available to the public anywhere else. The only other place is the USSR forums or ADN forums, both have to be registered, approved, and not IP banned.(unsigned edit by 68.56.172.224)

My sentiment lays neutral now then. Rechze • (talk) 06:28, 8 Feb 2005 (GMT)

• Note that is is inaccessible on the ADN forum because this decision was on the old (s3) forums, which are no longer open to anybody except Pope Hope and maybe another admin or two. However, source material such as this really isn't appropriate for the wiki, so I'm not going to vote yea or nay here. --Goobergunch|? 19:26, 8 Feb 2005 (GMT)
  • I'd say keep it, then. However, it needs to be wikified if kept, adding links and headings. ~ Nanakaland 19:45, 11 Mar 2005 (GMT)

January 20

Union_of_Socialist_Republics_Constitution (add to this discussion)

Deletion discussion

This discussion is now closed. The article was deleted by 15 May 2005 on {{{2}}}, with consensus to delete achieved. The debate below serves as a record and should not be edited, as it is no longer live. --Goobergunch|? 16:26, 15 May 2005 (GMT)

Surely there is a link to this static constitution somewhere on a forum that could be linked to from the main article of the region, rather than taking up space when it could easily be linked to. Rechze • (talk) 10:55, 20 Jan 2005 (GMT)
Seconded. I've added Level 3 category headings to it's easier to navigate and hopefully a better article in the rare event of it not being removed.IdioC- エドの狂いtalk 21:49, 22 Jan 2005 (GMT)

Just a note, this is linked by the region "Union of Socialist Republics" as their constitution, however this has nothing to do with that region. This is the costitution of the Haven-based alliance, not the region. ~Hallad

January 25

The_TAJ_Imperium (Talk:The_TAJ_Imperium)

Deletion discussion

This discussion is now closed. The inclusion tag was removed by {{{1}}} on ~~~~~, with no consensus to delete the article achieved. 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|? 20:49, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)

The following needs to be deleted due to a little "mistake" and inactivity:

NATIONS:

• San_Diendo
• The_Bear_Army
• The_Jacob_Empire
• The_TAJ_Imperium

CHARACTERS:

• Chief_General_Miek

REGIONS:

• The_new_roman_empire
• The_OutBoards2
• THE_WEST_PACIFIC

USER:

• Deletion
• The_TAJ_Imperium
• The_Taj_Republic
• The_Scarran_HiveWorlds

DYNASTIES:

• List_of_Jacobian_monarchs

USER TALK:

• The_TAJ_Imperium/Please_delete_the_following
• Please_delete_the_following

User:Syayrien Union, I checked your User Contributions, and you are not the original or sole author of any of these pages. Request for speedy deletion denied.

This 'laundry list' of articles will need a lot more explanation regarding reasons for deletion before I will concur that they need deletion. Please explain the reasons for your request, and sign your post, please. Please see NSwiki:Deletion policy for the rules regarding speedy and consensus deletion. Request for consensus deletion on hold, pending a lot more information. → Fris Θtalk 23:21, 25 Jan 2005 (GMT)

If you can access the wiki from the IP address: 217.23.230.5 , without logging in, and state that you wish for the following to be deleted: List_of_Jacobian_monarchs, New_Roman_Imperium & The_Jacob_Empire, followed by a signature (~~~~), that should suffice for the speedy deletion of those three articles.

In addition, doing the same, except for logging in as User:TAJ Imperium and specifying for the article: The TAJ Imperium will likely suffice for the speedy deletion of that article.

Or alternately, you could send a telegram from each of the nations involved (ie: San_Diendo, The_TAJ_Imperium, The_Bear_Army & The_Jacob_Empire) to an administrator stating that the person behind each nation is also User:Syayrien Union.

Furthermore, I have found that neither the articles: The_new_roman_empire, THE_WEST_PACIFIC, nor the user, The_Scarran_HiveWorlds currently exist. Rechze • (talk) 06:04, 26 Jan 2005 (GMT)

Please Delete The TAJ Imperium(TAJ 11:52, 14 Mar 2005 (GMT))

March 8

Jake (add to this discussion)

Deletion discussion

This discussion is now closed. The article was deleted by 22 March 2005 on {{{2}}}, with consensus to delete achieved. The debate below serves as a record and should not be edited, as it is no longer live. --Goobergunch|? 19:10, 22 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Not NationStates related and generally spam. --Goobergunch|? 03:39, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)

• Delete - looks like someone testing; should be removed as soon as possible. --Eddie 10:16, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Delete → Fris Θtalk 21:47, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Delete. Rechze • (talk) 07:13, 9 Mar 2005 (GMT)

March 10

Roman Senate (add to this discussion)

Deletion discussion

This discussion is now closed. The inclusion tag was removed by 22 March 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|? 19:14, 22 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Yet another procedural nomination from myself. The speedy deletion tag was posted by 152.163.100.8 at 22:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC). As it does not meed speedy criteria, I'm moving it to NSwiki:Deletion. My vote is below. --Goobergunch|? 01:23, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)

• Keep (with the appropriate changes) for historical reference. One of the purposes of NSwiki is to help document the history of NationStates. --Goobergunch|? 01:23, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• I agree with keep - just as long as someone in the know actually does get around to improving the article. --Eddie 23:27, 18 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Keep with improvements. --Arturria 23:33, 18 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Palantir (add to this discussion)

Deletion discussion

This discussion is now closed. The article was deleted by 22 March 2005 on {{{2}}}, with consensus to delete achieved. The debate below serves as a record and should not be edited, as it is no longer live. --Goobergunch|? 19:16, 22 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Procedural nomination. --Goobergunch|? 01:29, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)

First of all, a is not an undertakers ministry thing but it has been used by others as well. Second of all, it is better to make a good article in one session then to just post a picture of a palantir in an article. This is useless and confusing for people visiting the page. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 16:42, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)

• Delete. Usually I'd vote a weak "keep and expand" for articles that probably merit inclusion, but don't have enough information to be useful. However, this article is kind of useless, as it contains no information not found in Wikipedia. --Goobergunch|? 01:29, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Delete. I suspect that it may have been reserved, or created in advance of including content. This is a practice which I personally see no purpose for, as reserving so as to get one's own article under the correct name, would be utterly in vain, that is why we have disambiguation pages. If another were to have composed an article of the same name, that of a reserved article, chances are that the article with content would be put in place of the empty one. Moreover even prelaying an empty page seems to me fairly pointless. Rechze • (talk) 10:05, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)

State (add to this discussion)

Deletion discussion

This discussion is now closed. The article was deleted by 22 March 2005 on {{{2}}}, with consensus to delete achieved. The debate below serves as a record and should not be edited, as it is no longer live. --Goobergunch|? 19:17, 22 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Procedural nomination. --Goobergunch|? 01:31, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Deletion discussion

The State article seems to be an attempt to define a term rather than something to do exclusively with NationStates. There was a single link to it, from Archtovia, which I have already redirected to the appropriate section of the Wikipedia article. Recommend this be deleted.

If the author of this piece, User:140.254.114.52, agrees with the logic of NSwiki:policy, it would be much simpler if s/he would change the {{inclusion}} notice to {{delete}}. See NSwiki:Deletion policy for clarification. → Fris Θtalk 23:55, 27 Jan 2005 (GMT)

• Delete, useless without context. --Goobergunch|? 01:31, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Delete. Rechze • (talk) 10:10, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Category:Rivers (add to this discussion)

Deletion discussion

This discussion is now closed. The article was deleted by 18 March 2005 on {{{2}}}, with consensus to delete achieved. The debate below serves as a record and should not be edited, as it is no longer live. --Goobergunch|? 19:18, 22 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Procedural nomination. --Goobergunch|? 01:33, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)

I highly doubt that we need a category for something that only has one entry. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 20:01, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I concur. Rechze • (talk) 06:19, 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)

• Very weak keep. Now contains two articles. --Goobergunch|? 01:33, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Delete and change to something like geographical features. Rechze • (talk) 10:09, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Delete and recreate as Geography, then recategorize entries. → Fris Θtalk 23:37, 10 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Sure. A geography category would be nice. ~ Nanakaland 19:33, 12 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Delete and recreate as Geography seems like the best idea to me. Rivers is too specific. --Eddie 23:24, 18 Mar 2005 (GMT)
• Delete and recreate as Geography --Arturria 23:31, 18 Mar 2005 (GMT)

Category:Geography created, articles moved, Category:Rivers deleted. This page can be deleted shortly. → Fris Θtalk 23:45, 18 Mar 2005 (GMT)