"

mfd
I do not agree with  your close of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Marie Charlotte de la Trémoille which I think a classic supervote. There were 4 opinions: the nom's opinion to delete as a stale draft, another editor's opinion to delete because of questionable notability and a stale draft , my opinion to redirect to the apparent subject of the article, and a keep opinion that the subject was notable and that the user thought it could be worked on further, and had a source available.

You decided to delete, admitting that ""this may not look like the right result"", based on your view that   1/""it was extremely unlikely that a redirect would help find the associated article""  perhaps, but it would help the user find at least some information on the named person 2/""the incubator was a bad idea, 3/there was a user willing to work on it you would undelete  but there wasa user willing to work on it. 

As you didn't delete it, someone placed a speedy on it, which is reasonable of them, but I boldly reversed it while I ask you to reconsider. (If you   hold by your decision & want to revert me, I will not consider it wheel-warring in this circumstance)  Your reasons, 1/ is misconceivedthe pt of the redirect is to find some info on the named subject, which is present in the article redirected toit at least identifies the person 2/your personal opinion that an accepted feature of WP should be closed down, and 3/ the distinction you drew between someone who might work on it and someone who could. 

Since you said, ""if there is a user willing to work on it you would be happy to move it, please  either relist for further discussion,  move it to my user space or that of FactS[pace. or redirect as I suggested. 

And there would be some merit in an argument that a person opposed in principle to the article incubator should not close mfds involving it. If I opposed articles on unpopulated extinct villages in general, should I close such AfDs in conformity to my opinion ? '''''' ( talk ) "