Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Area9 Lyceum

 __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:  speedily deleted per G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Area9 Lyceum

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Promotional page Kaseng55 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is just enough content on this page that I won't tag it for G11. If this page gets speedied, that ends this MFD.  There isn't enough neutral content in this draft to be worth the effort of stubifying it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NDRAFT. There are enough good sources amongst the RefBombed list that a proper review would be exhaustive, and reviewing the difficult end of drafts is not the purpose of MfD.  However, ask, who blocked the author "23:32, 20 September 2021 Cullen328 talk contribs blocked Area9 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked)"  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I blocked User: Area9 for a username violation and for creating a draft with clearly promotional writing like and  and  That is PR writing and puffery appropriate only for the company's website, but not for a neutral encyclopedia article. If any uninvolved editor is willing to jump in and radically transform this corporate brochure into an actual encyclopedia article, kudos to them. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. In fact I would have speedily deleted it, because the whole thing is an advertisement. (I have no idea why anyone would think that having "enough content" is a reason for not deleting a page as promotional. If anything I would think the more promotional content there is, the more reason there is to delete it.)JBW (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not object to G11, but others at WT:CSD would (they think neutral junk promotion isn't good enough, they think it must be irretrievably POV). I think a good enough reason to delete is the ridiculous number (94) of references that includes a high proportion of very poor references.  If this is notable, I would tell a proponent to use WP:TNT and follow the advice at WP:THREE.  I hope it was a dump of work done for another reason, because otherwise it is a serious waste of time, there is no reasonable trajectory for it to be accepted in mainspace.  I !vote "keep" because it is the purpose of draftspace to contain this timewasting stuff, and bringing it to MfD defeats that purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2021 (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.