Wikipedia talk:What G6 is not

#Things that do not qualify for G6

Am I correct in my interpretation of this as "Pages that have actually been deleted as G6 but do not qualify"? If so, it'd probably be better to say that. (Maybe not with the "actually".) I'm of two minds about linking to examples of them; while it would be helpful to show that we're not just being randomly alarmist, it would likely be taken poorly by the deleting administrators, and rightly so.

This section name would be better listing broad guidance of the sorts of pages that aren't G6s, rather than these very specific examples. Stuff like "any non-temporary deletion of information" (not just "content", which could be interpreted as excluding most pages outside the main namespace); "any page whose deletion anyone familiar with Wikipedia could object to in good faith, or who has already objected to"; and "any page which nearly fits another speedy deletion criterion but is specifically excluded from it". —Cryptic 21:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I think what HouseBlaster intended when he wrote this essay (Special:PermaLink/1152350536) may have been along more broad lines, and then I hijacked it with more specific examples, (and have even more in my userspace for things I thought would be too controversial to go here). Anyway I have no objection to a retitle. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with a retitle (and I am more than happy with Pppery's additions!). I titled it as a parallel to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, but I realize it has grown beyond that. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I've done some restructuring, deciding to split the difference on your suggestion of whether to link to examples by including the example in an HTML comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)