Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:NASLite

:{{pagelinks|Draft:NASLite}} – (View MfD)

::{{grey|(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.)}} Techie3 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This draft was originally put up for discussion where it was decided to be draftified. The draft is now able to be G13'd but I wanted to open a discussion on if it should be deleted or kept for someone to work on. To be clear I am in support of deletion. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: Its under my stewardship and may or may go forward in time. When I have time. I'll push this all the way if I have to up to DRV if necessary and we'll waste everyone's time. WikiStreess Rules OK! Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• {{Ping|Djm-leighpark}} its not been edited for 6 months though... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• To state the bloody obvious the UK is under COVID-19 restrictions and some of the places I'd like to access for this (and other stuff) are closed or require me to take transport risks to access at this time. This may never come back but its on my watchlist. And there's no real rush. I could userpace it but I prefer draftspace in the remote hope of collaberation. Better to be improving articles than living in discussion place and worry about how quickly drafts develop. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable software. If any established user wants to persevere with it, point them to WP:DUD and let them request userfication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• To state the obvious If this is deleted I will immediately request userification. The only slight advantage might be I then get the pre-G13 warning. What a fiasco! Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• If userfied, please remove any AfC taggery. You will then be responsible for it, and it has nothing to do with AfC. I don't think the AfC system is well used for backburner work on deleted content, but userspace is. AfC is for waylaying inept newcomers and SPA editors with a COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: No valid reason for deletion is suggested above. I don't know if notability for this software will eventually be established. But that doesn't matter as alleged lack of notability is not a reason for deletion at the Draft stage. Note this is not currently under the AfC system, although it used to be. There is very little difference between userspace drafts and non-afc draftspace drafts. Draft space is subject to g13, user space is not. Draftspace implicitly invites other editors to join, userspace does not. Those are the only differences Im am aware of. Nor are the standards for deletion any different, aside from G13. Personally I develop all my new articles in draft, but not via AfC. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Although there's no WP distinction as to this view here I personally generally see and use draftspace when I wish to allow for (the possibility of) collaberative editing and userspace when I wish to develop something myself without really wanting disruption from others at that stage. It is also case as far as I am aware that attempting to create an article in mainspace should show if the same name is already present in draftspace (Follow :NASLite and you will see There is a draft for this article at Draft:NASLite.) , and I don't think that would be the case in userspace. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• In userspace there is no need for a pretence that the material is to be worked on in the short term. In userspace you may welcome or unwelcome others helping, your choice. For this material, I see no plausible prospects for overcoming the AfD deletion discussion, but in userspace there are no time limits. If leaving deleted material indefinitely in userspace, it is usually recommended to blank during periods of inactivity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Userfy per the above request, or mark as a promising draft and leave it where it is. No reason to make this more difficult than it has to be; {{user|Djm-leighpark}} has already said that they want to work on it, so why bother going through all this just so it can immediately go to WP:REFUND or WP:DRV as soon as it's deleted. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
• mark as promising draft so people can work on it. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• {{U|Techie3}} This has already been open for three weeks, and has drawn comment from 6 established editors, most of them making more than one comment. Is there really a need to relist this? I think it is ripe for closure. If you7 don't want to close it, let someone else do so. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Indeed, MfD relistings are almost always pointless and even counter productive. They annoyingly shuffle the MfD list order, and actually serve to decrease visibility of old discussions. Discussions in the backlog appropriately attract attention due to being in the backlog. Relisting should be reserved for where there is a good reason to relist, such as new information, or to call back early participants to an unexpected new argument, and when done this requires a meaningful relisting comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
• Ok, then. I have learned something then. I should not relist a MFD, unless there is new information. Techie3 (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - This would have been a Keep, except that for some reason I missed it in the discussion, and because User:Djm-leighpark is being annoying in responding to everyone. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2020 (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.