Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logistics Bureau Group

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. Sandstein 10:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Logistics Bureau Group

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

Very weak suggestion of notability, if at all - fells well below WP:CORP. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. Looks like an advert. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as there's several sources but perhaps not as solid an article as there could be. Draft and userfy if needed, SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I reviewed other businesses listed in Category:Logistics companies of Australia for coverage, references and notability. I did not find the depth of coverage for this company to be so substantially less than some of the others in this category. (With the exception of Lewington's Transport, which will probably be deleted soon if not improved.) - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 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.