Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexis PR

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) 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lexis PR[edit]

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

Quite questionably notable company as although I found some links at News, Books, browser and Highbeam, there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement for this speedy and PROD-worthy article that has managed to stay since October 2007. Notifying past users Vrenator and Fluffernutter. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to distinguish this pr agency. In general, � such companies work with occasional major brands-- it would be significant if it were the principal agency for several of them, but that's not stated. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editor. Nothing in searches to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:26, 27 October 2015 (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.