Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 December 2: Difference between revisions

Template:Country data Quisling regime (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This template that I created was deleted under the rationale that the Quisling regime itself was not a country, and also that the flag had never been officially used by the Norwegian government at anytime in history. While the latter part is true and was an oversight on my part, I don’t agree with the decision to delete based on the fact that the Quisling regime wasn’t a country. There are plenty of country datas that are used to refer to specific regimes in specific countries even if said regime didn’t exist as a country in their own right (see Template:Country data Vargas Era, Template:Country data Orontid dynasty, Template:Country data Military dictatorship of Chile, Template:Country data Empire of Japan, Template:Country data Greek junta, Template:Country data Allied-occupied Germany, Template:Country data Duvalier family, Template:Country data Fascist Italy, Template:Country data Ba’athist Iraq, Template:Country data Ba’athist Syria, and Template:Country data Chetniks, plus subnational entities such as Template:Country data Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Template:Country data Utah, Template:Country data Northern Ireland, and Template:Country data Rome. Per this 2017 RM, the template clearly isn’t meant to just be used for countries. With these years of precedent, I don’t think that a deletion based on the fact that there was no country called the “Quisling Regime” should have occurred; it would have been better to have just altered the flag. — Knightoftheswords 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Werklig (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article draft was neutrally written, well sourced with multiple independent and reliable references, and submitted through Articles for Creation. It contained no promotional language and therefore did not qualify for CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion), which it had been flagged under. Drafts under AfC aren’t normally subject to G11 unless they are unsalvageable or pure spam, which this wasn’t. Following COI rules, a clear conflict-of-interest disclosure was provided on the Talk page. Requesting undeletion so that the draft can proceed through the standard AfC review process. Esa Matinvesi (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporarily undeleted for review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Looking at the undeleted version there was no hope for this article. Fully promotional and no sources were even close to meeting WP:SIRS. Recommend appellant to read WP:BOSS and heed that advice. Jumpytoo Talk 04:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: Sure, the draft is promotional and has sourcing issues, but I don’t know if it’s in G11 territory, as it has some neutral information in it. I think the appellant should have been given the chance fix it, rather than be forced to start over from scratch. I won’t comment on notability, as drafts aren’t checked for that, and this Deletion Review isn’t about whether the draft should have been accepted. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh, that was clearly eligible under G11, but I wouldn’t have used it on a draft article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• When I see pages like this in CAT:G11 that on the surface have neutral(ish) diction but obviously cherry-picked content, I typically don’t speedy it myself, but remove the promotional parts – here, it’d be everything but the lead – and leave it tagged for another admin to reassess. It’s been literal years since such a page wasn’t speedied anyway, though. —Cryptic 11:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]