Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Duplekita

:{{pagelinks|Draft:Duplekita}}

This page was deleted at AfD just recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duplekita. As such the restoration to draftspace is pointless unless someone can establish notability. This should be deleted as disruption and per the AfD. Legacypac (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - The content at Duplekita was only deleted because of your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ATrekie9001%2FDuplekita inappropriate move]. As the content was nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted, it clearly wasn't suitable for the mainspace. You actually !voted "Delete per nom, thanks for the good analysis" in the deletion discussion. I contested the deletion and requested restoration in a proper namespace via the proper process. This nomination is mischaracterizing and further disruption by {{noping|Legacypac}}.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep and {{tl|trout}} for these never-ending time-wasting requests to delete drafts. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Godsy is the time waster bring back a deleted draft and he is uncivil to boot. Misrepresents my actions amd acts like a complete troll. Get a life amd stop stalking my edits Godsy. Legacypac (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

:Further you misrepresent the deletion reason. I thought coverage by the CBC was good for notability but that was shown to be insufficient. That is why i supported deletion. Legacypac (talk) 19:13, 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) 20:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

:*{{reply to|Ricky81682}} That isn't 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) 23:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

::* Fine. I'll support a very weak keep just to end all this nonsense. I'm assuming someone actually intends to work on this draft and it's not just here because people presume the original author will return and do it for them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability concerns have been established as not a sufficient reason to delete in DraftSpace or UserSpace. Allow it to go through the normal Draft process. If there is a wish to delete more quickly drafts of dubious notability, establish consensus to do so, but I strongly recommend against it as notability testing is hard work. The exercise would not be worth the work. Classifying drafts of dubious notability may be helpful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 4 April 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.