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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LexJet[edit]

LexJet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Ridiculously kept in 2008 which was a ridiculous "AfD nomination" at several levels than simply one, this article is entirely a blatant advertisement for a company who would of course use PR for advertising itself, my own searches are then finding nothing, let alone something that would've been substantial, everything listed here is an explosive advertisement in focusing with only what the company would say itself. Not only has this article barely changed, there were also accounts focusing with this one article alone, considering the blatancy here, it of course suggests it was company involvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article probably should be rewritten so that it no longer reads as an advertisement. However, there does appear to be a number of RS regarding this company (e.g. http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/hub/chi-inc-how-many-salespeople-do-you-really-need-bsi-hub-story.html). ReusGang (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands, per nom - apart from being blatantly spam, the sources I find for this article are mostly press releases and reprinted press releases. That Chicago Tribune piece is the closest to RS I can find at all. Perhaps your filter bubble is being more helpful to you; if so, we'll need actual RSes for the WP:TNT this richly deserves - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam; strictly promotional. Even if the subject were notable (which is unlikely per available sources), it would need to be completely rewritten. So WP:TNT applies anyway. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reading this article is like visiting the realm of the banal and mundane. Thankfully, I was able to finish it before I started snoring. This is totally spam. The sources are press releases, announcements, repackaged press releases, and the like. I do like the Chicago Tribune article; journalistic integrity is present, but this does not qualify as significant coverage. Yet, if we had five or six more like this one, the coverage would probably be sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH - but alas we do not. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion per WP:PROMO. Also, this topic fails GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2016 (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.