Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Endeavor Business Media

 __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:  keep. But, you know, weakly. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Endeavor Business Media

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Nominating this draft for an MfD. As the CSD-G11 tag was not appropriate in the first place. - Hatchens (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hey . Just wondering if you have additional info to add to your nomination? Is your concern notability, spamming, something else? Personally I am leaning toward keep, as this COI editor disclosed their COI early on (see top and ) and in my opinion has tried in good faith to follow our protocols. However, I am happy to hear your reasoning. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now. This doesn't seem to be in the fairly narrow range of drafts MfD is good for, where speedies are inappropriate but the thing needs to get out ASAP without waiting for a G13. Draftspace is hidden and self-clearing; declared/'legitimate' COI editing that nonetheless doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in the encyclopedia proper is just fine. Vaticidalprophet 07:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep not promo enough to get rid of now. SK2242 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Vaticidalprophet, should probably be sent back here if rejected. —  csc -1 02:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hi, The only additional information is... a general consensus needed to either keep this draft or delete it because CSD-G11 tag which I put earlier was not appropriate (as suggested by ). -Hatchens (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment it was not a clear G11, so declined it. While the draft is referenced solely to PR and regurgitated PR and authored by a paid editor who cannot hear that their referencing is unacceptable, it might just as well wither on the vine. However, does this not just give work for folk at G13 time? If resubmitted it ought to be rejected, after all. It will fail a main space AfD (0.8 probability) in this state. Fiddle   Faddle  08:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Needed declining, and was declined. Rejecting would be in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 26 March 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.