Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLS Logistics Services


 * 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  05:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

PLS Logistics Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This company doesn't seem to have the coverage in reliable sources necessary to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations. I had previously tagged it for speedy deletion G11 as blatant advertising, but acquiesced after the author agreed to fix any promotional content. It would probably be possible to turn this into a neutral stub without too much effort, but there's nothing that can be done about the lack of sources. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. WP:ADVERT content notwithstanding, the coverage I found regarding this company is comprised mostly of press releases and the ocassional passing mention in Pittsburgh Post Gazette regarding changes in management, etc. The latter is merely incidental coverage and is not sufficient to demonstrate that this company meets WP:CORP and more specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. None but shining hours (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Updated this article with additional links and resources that we feel are reliable sources. Please advise if these changes are adequate to prevent article deletion. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffyvan (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment A bot reverted your edit as it likely appeared as if you were turning the page into a WP:LINKFARM. It is not generally a good idea to insert links to your company's Facebook or Youtube page as that is often considered spam. Press releases are not considered reliable sources either. None but shining hours (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete Comment I found a few links: there's a story in the Florida Times-Union, two stories on obscure trade journals that look a bit PR-release-ish, and there's a para on Inc. There's also a vast amount of job adverts, so either they're expanding a lot, or they're really terrible to work at.  In all seriousness, the Florida Times-Union is the only one I'd call substantial coverage in a reliable source.  EDIT: I changed my vote, upon reflection, because of the lack of evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient evidence of notability, either for the company or their PLS Pro system. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2012 (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.