Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlaxUK

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. Sam Walton (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FlaxUK

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not for searches: company was formerly known as Lemur Consulting Ltd -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no RSes in article and none I could find in the world. I'm having trouble finding even unreliable third-party sources. Two book mentions (both just in passing, of Lemur Consulting), which surprised me there was that much - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No assertion of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not supporting the article, but "like thousands of others" is not a good arguement for deletion.. there are not just thousands, but hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of notable companies, and WP is NOT PAPER. Even in this general area there probably are a few thousand notable IT companies. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article says everything by itself: the basic information about what there is to advertise about the company, and it's not even a substantial advertising, showing it was simply an excuse to make an article and put anything PR, no actual substance of course, because no company would ever consider that. SwisterTwister talk 19:04, 1 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.