Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong

 __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. MER-C 12:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong


This was deleted at AfD Articles_for_deletion/Solitaire_%26_Mahjong as not notable, and now restored and moved to Draft space at a user's request. They created a redirect from another user's space to this page which should also be deleted as dependent on a deleted page. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The content at Duplekita was only deleted because of your inappropriate move. As the content was nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, it clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace. I contested the deletion and requested restoration in a proper namespace via the proper process. This nomination is mischaracterizing and further disruption by . — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A vote based on assuming bad faith, incorrect assumptions and a personal attack should be ignored. No policy reason give. to keep this and override the AfD consensus  Legacypac (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The process wonkery is irrelevant if the restoration was not a good faith effort to actually work on the thing. Only admins can see this but there were also numerous page moves that were deleted via CSD criteria. One example is Strategic Biomass Solutions. Those haven't been restored because no one has successfully argued for a wholesale reversal and restoration of Legacypac's conduct. As such, I don't see why we should be restoring the AFD deletions and not the CSD deletions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not true. Non-admins can see them too: Special:Log/Legacypac. All the content speedily deleted under non-general speedy deletion criteria have been restored at RfU. Strategic Biomass Solutions was deleted under two criteria, one of which was general (i.e. it would have applied to the userspace as well). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 23:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposing a very weak keep on the assumption that someone actually intends to work on this draft and it's not simply better on the original editor returning after four years to do it for them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Going back to delete. It's been a month since the last discussion and no one has bothered with this. I don't see the point in keeping up this charade just for some WP:POINTy dispute. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is planning to work on it? Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)... crickets... so this is just maneuvering to keep a page to prove a point, not to improve the project. Legacypac (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best for now as my own searches found nothing better, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  07:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Articles_for_deletion/Solitaire_%26_Mahjong. Draft space should be used to circumvent deletion decisions. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles_for_deletion/Solitaire_%26_Mahjong, although I cannot find the explanation for why administrator User:Michig undeleted and draftified it. Were it not for the AfD, I would say to redirect to List_of_Wii_games.  Redirect to Articles_for_deletion/Solitaire_%26_Mahjong is also a reasonable possibility.  There is less need to clean up DraftSpace titles than there is to help newcomers with illadvised intentions to draft again under the same title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It was undeleted based on a request by Godsy at User_talk:Michig which was to restore it to the original editor's namespace. As Michig pointed out, that editor hadn't been here for four years so it was only moved to draftspace. Godsy's representation that the request was "for the proper namespace" above is inaccurate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I like to think that someone's "inappropriate moves" and others' counter-moves were just errors in judgement and now in the past.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2016 (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.