Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Soğukoğlu

 __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. With the creator inactive, it makes no sense to user/draftify. If someone wants this down the road, happy to make it available in the correct location Star   Mississippi  00:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Soğukoğlu

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Likely not notable, should not exist in the Wikipedia namespace. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 18:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Requested G6. Abortive anthroponymy page attempt in the wrong namespace. No content.—Alalch E. 22:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bad call. It is not G6 eligible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Mainspace or Userfy. The user did’t understand the limitations of their not being autoconfirmed and write two new articles in the wrong namespace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The user created this page in the wrong name space on 2023-05-18 19:12, then correctly recreated it as a draft on 2023-05-18 20:17 (the draft ran into G13). Therefore this is an unambiguous error, a page created in the incorrect namespace in error, and is G6 eligible. —Alalch E. 23:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is G6 eligible. G6 should never be used to delete others’ nontrivial edit histories. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That history, if seen that way, regarding this page attempt, is in the deleted draftspace page, this is duplicative to that. —Alalch E. 23:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a history of rampant abuse of G6. G6 does not apply to this page.  While duplication of edit history could be considered a reason for deletion, it is not justification for misuse of G6.
 * As a general rule, I think new users writing pages in projectspace should result in the page being userfied for them, and them being welcomed. Clearly, the new user didn’t understand some technicalities.  Deleting their edit history, making it invisible to them, only worsens the confusion to them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, this would not have been abuse of G6, it would have been an appropriate application of G6, the page was unambiguously created in error, evidence by the same editor's correction of said error by correctly recreating the page in draftspace, meaning that they were themselves aware of the error, and the "worsens confusion to them" part does not hold. If they come back to edit, and they can be assumed to be inactive, and they wonder "what happened to that Soğukoğlu page", they will see this on their talk page: User talk:Birisini, and they will not be confused. —Alalch E. 23:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Conversely, they could be confused in the following way: "I tried to fix this error by creating the page in the correct namespace and that was deleted, but the erroneous creation still stands ... so was that perhaps not an error?"—Alalch E. 23:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:G6 specifically says it applies to pages unambiguously created...in the incorrect namespace, and in this case there's no need to draftify/userfy since the user later created an identical version in the right location. Obviously I won't speedy-delete over a good-faith objection, but if I had seen this in the queue I wouldn't have had any qualms about deleting, and I tend to be fairly conservative when it comes to G6. If there's a G6 abuse problem, deletions that follow the criterion as written aren't part of it. Anyways, delete since this is clearly not what the project namespace is for and since (as discussed above) there's no need to move it elsewhere. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When did G6 acquire that? If someone mistakenly creates in the wrong namespace, the obvious thing to do is to move it to the correct namespace, explain it to the user, and CSD#R2 the redirect if it wasn’t already suppressed.
 * In this case, a newcomer not autoconfirmed, it’s not an unambiguous “error”, but an attempt to get around the technical barrier against creating a new mainspace page. It should not be in CSD#G6. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * “no need to move it elsewhere” is not a reason to not Userfy. Many god things are not needed.  This user now has MfD notices, and when you delete their contribution history, it makes it very hard for them to work out what they did that was wrong. Maybe you’ll say they left and aren’t returning?  I say that’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I did what I think is the ideal thing for User:Birisini/İbrahim Halil Soğukoğlu.
 * Soğukoğlu can similarly be considered a sub-stub suitable for their userspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The "incorrect namespace" wording has been in policy for nearly fourteen years. I largely agree with Alalch's comments above regarding your other points. As an aside, WP:CSD only applies to redirects from mainspace; redirects from other namespaces are typically G6'd (as indeed İbrahim Halil Soğukoğlu was). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, CSD wording is that. G6 has been a badly a catch-all for a long time.  Speedy deleting an intended contribution due to it being put in projectspace, seems like WP:BITE to me, or worse, because they can’t later see what happened.  Probably they’ll never find the deletion log entry.
 * In this case the user followed up by reposting in draftspace, so “delete” is a reasonable option, but I really think it should not be speediable.
 * I wondered why Liz cited G6, thanks. I don’t think G6 is a good fit, but do agree my trailing redirect, with no nontrivial history, should be speediable.  Next time I’ll G7 it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, strictly speaking it wouldn't be a G7 either: "For redirects created as a result of a page move, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages before the move." This is one of the reasons I think we have to be really careful about narrowing G6: without it, redirects like that one would have to go to RfD, which I think all of us agree isn't the right answer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * R3 would apply in that case as long as the redirect is recently created, and hopefully errors of this sort that languish undetected for months are rare enough that RfD can handle them. I'm inconsistent about which I use. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm probably the most conservative admin ever when it comes to G6, and if I had seen this in the queue I would probably have moved to draftspace and declined the G6. Since we're here, though, delete. If the draft had already existed, then I would likely have accepted the G6, with the reasoning being that they had realized their initial error by creating in the correct namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete, abandoned draft in the wrong place and the creator is inactive . - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Knowledgekid87. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 22:19, 20 January 2024 (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.