It seems pretty obvious to me that Mikkelai's claim that the name-space was not deleted, so he can write a new article in it, is just an attempt to circumvent the vote for deletion. Not only does this demonstrate bad faith; it sets a bad precedent. Anyone who was invested in any deleted article can just bring it back and write some more. And others would once again go through the lengthy process of a vote for deletion.
The VfD process is five days, which is hardly "lengthy."
Perhaps we need not always permanently delete a name space -- maybe in some cases, a moratorium of half a year or a year would suffice. But I think we need a clear policy on this: the name spaces of articles deleted are either deleted as well, or protected for some significant period.
It is not correct to refer to the name of a deleted page as "name space." Namespaces are things that contain names not the names themselves. I do think it is OK for someone to create an article with the same name as a previously deleted one as long as the new article isn't more or less a copy of the deleted one. Ofcourse people are free to place the new article on VfD too. I don't think the VfD process creates final decisions for what should be in Wikipedia, I don't think it should either.
In the meantime, what kind of action can be taken in this case? The
Should any any action be taken? What about the admin that "extra-judicially" deleted the page?