Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:OpenHAB (2nd nomination)

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:OpenHAB

This has been declined 7 times at AfD over a long period of time. Extensive comments on the draft describe why it has not been accepted. Delete per WP:NMFD Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Horrible draft, but the topic may be notable (I found several RS during the last MfD). Pavlor (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fact that the topic may be notable doesn't mean that we have to keep the draft if the draft is no good, and the draft is no good. Author has had four years since deletion of article to try to bring this draft up to standard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The draft seems easily improvable, and the existing version can serve as a basis for improvement. In fact, if it had a few decent sources, it would be possible to actually accept it as having a reasonable chance of passing Afd. am not sure of notability , but that will be tested at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with promoting it to be fixed, but MfD seemed like a good idea given all the declines. A keep at MfD result insulates the AfC reviewer who overrides the declines. Legacypac (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tI agree with bringing an AfC here after multiple declines as a way of getting some sort of decision. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/60 days There seems to be some activity on this article. Maybe this discussion also helps motivating people to improve it. So I'd vote for keep or at least give it some more time while keeping this discussion open. Maybe 60 days, until the end of the year. Eff0ktiv (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The majority of the sources in the draft are very likely unreliable and some are even blogs. 344917661X (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.