Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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)[reply]

Draft:Solitaire & Mahjong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solitaire_&_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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.