Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Ali Fadhul/Archive 1

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ali Fadhul/Archive 1

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

created by accident. Qwirkle (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:CSD. Qwirkle in the future you can accomplish this yourself by adding db-g7/db-author to a page you create by accident. db-error also works if you notice someone else has created a page by accident. Also for future reference Talk pages go to WP:MFD, not WP:AFD, but in this case it doesn't make a difference WP:NOTBURO etc. Regards, 95.67.131.232 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and Wrong forum. Firstly this should be at MfD if anywhere, but secondly and more importantly a talk page archive is not subject to G7 speedy deletion and really shouldn't be deleted at all. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, in your opinion, every time someone makes a fatfingered mistake, it must be preserved eternally, per omnia saecula saeculorum, simply because of where it was made? Further proof that “Not a Bureaucracy!!!” is up there with “the check’s in the mail!” Qwirkle (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * IP 95/79 inquired on my talk why this speedy was declined. They had no way of knowing that I'd !vote here, or which way I'd come down if so, so I think there's no WP:CANVASS violation for me to !vote. On that note... easy speedy delete G7 per 95/79. Liz and Thryduulf, I think you may have overlooked the history here:
 * Qwirkle accidentally clicked the 1CA button.
 * Qwirkle self-reverted the revertable half, a minute later, restoring that content to the parent talk page.
 * Qwirkle nominated the archive for deletion 11 days later. At this point, there was nothing in the archive that was not also on the parent talk page.
 * Because the nomination was in the wrong venue and was covered by a CSD criterion, IP 95/79 tagged for speedy deletion under G7.
 * Liz reverted without explanation.
 * This is a pretty straightforward G7 due to a misclick. There is no reason to maintain an archive of a thread that someone didn't mean to archive (a still-open thread filed only 12 days ago, at that), when it has already been restored to the parent talk page. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I didn't realise that this was a duplicate of the still-open talk page. That makes it OK for G6 but it's still not a G7. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this information would have been useful to know yesterday. First, it was nominated for an AFD deletion, despite being a talk page archive, and speedy deletion neither of which seemed appropriate. I have never seen a talk page archive page nominated for a deletion discussion. If there had been a comment that the content had been returned to the regular talk page, I would have deleted the page. But on the face of it, this was a peculiar and unusual deletion request. Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. I read the history.  Sometimes little accidents escalate into a bigger mess and a bigger dustpan is helpful.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.