Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Brenno Faustino

 __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: Keep * Pppery * it has begun... 05:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Brenno Faustino

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Would be G4 if had been created in main article space, as it is a close enough copy of what was deleted by Articles for deletion/Brenno Faustino. UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment it is not a WP:G4 in any namespace because Articles for deletion/Brenno Faustino closed as "soft delete", treated as an expired PROD. Whether or not this should be slowly deleted I will leave for others to decide. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:682F:9834:C196:9635 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Would be a Weak Keep even if the close was a hard delete. Drafts that are almost the same as deleted articles should be Rejected.  That is one of the purposes of Rejection.  They should only be deleted if they are resubmitted after rejection.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This draft was originally created by the deleted article's author as a mis-titled article. It was then moved to draft by someone more knowledgeable and experienced. I'm claiming it should have just been deleted then and there, as gaming the system, and that it's current status as a draft should be less important in the decision. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User:UtherSRG - It could have been either deleted from article space as G4 or moved to draft space. It could also have properly been created in draft space.  It was originally deleted from article space for notability or the lack thereof.  Drafts are not deleted from draft space for lack of notability.  Drafts are declined or rejected for lack of notability.  It is a draft, and could have been created as a draft, and it can stay a draft.  This is a content forum.  The misconduct of the originator is not important.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nominator is wrong about G4 because it was a soft delete. Why is the earlier history of the page still deleted?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep WP:SK#1. No reason for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep valid and fine draft. It's a draft. It's not a part of the encyclopedia. It can't be "less important in the decision". It's supremely important.—Alalch E. 17:46, 1 February 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.