Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LexJet


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

LexJet

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Reads like an ad. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — It reads like an ad, and doesn't seem notable. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the subject is very notable, google news shows a great wealth of RS on the company and the POV problems do not seem dire enough to purge the whole article. -Icewedge (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   -- --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many Google news hits hint at notability. I disagree completely that this article reads like an advertisement. It is not perfectly neutral, but this is grounds for improvement, not deletion. The company is the subject of multiple independent third-party sources, which is enough to warrant its own article. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep— After going over the evidence both FrankTobia and Icewedge present, I'm gonna change my mind. But, I still think it reads like an ad, and that's a problem. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It doesn't seem too advertish to me, needs some work but clearly notable and definitely not a candidate for deletion. L'Aquatique [review  ]  04:39, 23 June 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.