Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:NavaShield

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:NavaShield

 * – (View MfD)

Abandoned draft for non-notable software. Article was Prod deleted in 2012 as a non-notable virus, and deleted at Articles for deletion/NavaShield in 2017. I cannot see the 2017 content so I do not know if the current content differs. The current version is a four-edit one-day dump and run by an SPA editor who was attempting to justify the inclusion of NavaShield in List of rogue security software. There were a few tweaks and comments on the draft over the first few days (by me, User:Begoon and user:David notMD) and two replies on the talk page (by me and user:C.Fred ) more than six months ago, but no content changes since. The content was a verbatim copy of a virtually unsourced user-generated Wikia page https://malware.wikia.org/wiki/NavaShield It's not copyvio since the Wikia page is CC BY-SA 3.0, but a user-generated site is not a reliable source, and it contains no useful references for us to reuse. The original AFD found only instructions on how to remove the software online.

G13 was declined due to a recent, invalid request for G4 by user:JalenFolf. So, what we have is an abandoned draft that has had zero content edits for more than six months that does not qualify for G13 because someone tried to delete it. The author is gone, no-one is working on it, and it does not appear that a useful article could be created even if someone were to work on it. I don't see any point in waiting another six months to G13 this, so here we are at MFD. Meters (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * missed listing the editor who made the initial AFCH comment: user:Theroadislong Meters (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Soft delete. Frankly, this should be a case where G13 can still apply. It's an abandoned draft. I'm torn about allowing recreation of the draft later, though. Part of me says the subject will never hit the notability criteria, so allowing a draft is a waste of time—or worse, allowing draft space to act as a web host for the information. Part of me says allow the recreation if a good faith editor is really trying to build an article. So that's why I say soft delete: get rid of it for now, but if somebody is going to put some effort into it (and not just regurgitate another Wiki's article), allow restoration or recreation. —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - In my opinion, User:Dreamy Jazz made a newbie-admin error with regard to G13. A request to delete crud is not a real edit to the crud.  Easier to delete here than to get another admin to do a G13 or whatever.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do see what you mean (my interpretation was a human edit means any change in wikitext made by a non-bot). By the way, if another admin thinks G13 does apply, you have my support in deleting it. It might be worth adding to the CSD criterion that CSD nominations are not edits for the criteria, but that would definitely need a discussion. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * One does. :) —C.Fred (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Ouch If we can't speedy delete this because JalenFolf chose the incorrect CSD rationale, that sucks., what's the policy on that, do CSD tags effectively reset the 6 month clock for G13? Per common sense and WP:NOTBURO, I'd favour speedy delete per WP:CSD. Otherwise, soft delete per nom and so WP:REFUND can apply. A reasonable approach. Doug Mehus  T · C  23:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall noticing it was at the six month mark. To be honest, if I'd come across it with the G13 tag, I might've done the deletion, though the policy doesn't strictly allow for it.  That said, given that G13 can be undone by anyone for any reason, once it's been declined, I don't believe it's appropriate to re-add it (and really, I'd say it's inappropriate to re-add any speedy deletion tag removed by an admin or anyone else acting in good faith, except perhaps G10 or G12). Wily D  06:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It really does not matter now if the page is tagged G13 or not. It's at MFD and I doubt any admin would now G13 it without first looking at this MFD. Someone can close the MFD as G13 whether or not the article is tagged.
 * As for the strict interpretation of the G13 wording, I see that this wording has come up before. In Nov 2016 G13 read "excluding bot edits". There was an RFC in August 2017 Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_65 about G13 and following it wording was added excluding tagging even though the RFC close did not mention it. The "and maintenance actions such as tagging" was removed by user:PrussianOwl in Aug 2018 as not having consensus   and about a year ago user:Legacypac introduced the "have not been edited by a human in six months" rewording . I'm inclined to think that after a year of uncontested existence the "and maintenance actions such as tagging" should have been considered consensus even though the RFC close did not mention it, but that removal wan't contested either. I don't think that tagging a draft should reset the G13 clock, but I guess we will have to open a discussion if we want the wording loosened. Meters (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply...yeah, it wasn't at G13 at the time it was tagged, but was wondering, since it is now, if we can exclude the previous deletion tag and tag it as G13? That was my thinking. Nevertheless, this should close as delete shortly anyhoo. I was just wondering what the interpretation was for the future. Doug Mehus T · C  15:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "(...) but I guess we will have to open a discussion if we want the wording loosened." <--- Oof, that sounds kind of like a bureaucracy, though. Doug Mehus  T · C  15:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There has been quite a bit of reverting over changes to the wording of G13, including to this particular part of G13. I don't think a BOLD change is the way to go. Meters (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * True. Doug Mehus T · C  18:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The only advice I can give is to let go of you attachment to when probably hopeless but largely innocuous drafts get deleted, it doesn't matter. Outside of probably those falling under G10 or G12, there's no particular hurry. Wily D  05:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree fully with the above, with few exceptions the exact time of deletion isn't that important. While saying that, I feel like this should be speedy-able, but the CSD criteria are supposed to be construed narrowly so I don't see this as a newbie admin mistake, just a close adherence to a strict interpretation of policy. I do think in this situation there's some room for IAR, and I don't think that would cause any waves so long as the admins who did so were willing to immediately revert their own deletions upon request if challenged, which I'm sure would very rarely be the case. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:53, 24 January 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.