The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to draft. There is a bit too much of an assessment that this is not notable to be closed as no consensus. As move to draft was explicitly named by one participating editor, it seems like that is the our best form of consensus, while respecting applicable policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASLite[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Linux Distribution. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)|[reply]

Comment: Probably a stonewall keep. Observed this edit by T. Moitie The article NASLite needs some work on it [1] ... Indeed still there in Old revision of WikiProject Linux! Hmmmmm ..... Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sourcing. The first two sources appear identical and feature only a passing mention. This leaves the brief linux.com article, which insufficient as a basis for notability. Sandstein 12:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Stand by my previous thought but its a tad complex.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. If proposed improvements can be made, that can be done in draft so that the article can be restored to mainspace as a properly cited piece. BD2412 T 01:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.