Talk:Logistics Health Incorporated

message: The only reason the article was created, I suspect, was because of the firm's connection to failed presidential candidate :Tommy Thompson. Had he gotten somewhere, it would be of broader interest. The only argument I can see for retention is the possibility that he might be a Vice-Presidential nominee in 2008. --Orange Mike 13:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asserting, then, that the company meets the requirements for notability of a corporation? --Orange Mike 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you got citations for any of that? --Orange Mike  |  Talk 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably should be deleted 

message: :Image:New LHI logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:New LHI logo.gif

message: The only thing truly notable about the company is the continued practice of using temporary contract employees for a large portion of their workforce, instead of actually hiring them. The typical practice is to get a new crop of temps in on a rotating 6 or 9 month basis with the promise they have the opportunity for full-time employment. Then, the temps work for their 6-9 month stint, go back to their temp agency and get a new temp assignment with the company for another 6-9 months.
Even with the temp workers, the company has no where close to 1,000 employees. If you include tenants for the shell corporation established to lease publicly funded office space, then (and only then) do they reach the 1,000 employee mark. 
Numerous ethics complaints have been filed against this company, including serious concerns over how they managed to land federal contracts, even though they were nearly $1 Million over the low bidder and several other bids existed that were also lower.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.129.121 (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got citations for any of that? --Orange Mike  |  Talk 12:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only thing notable