Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process Plus LLC

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Process Plus LLC

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

Engineering firm with some local recognition, but I don't think it meets WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This is also so promotional in tone that it causes cavities: a Full-Service Engineering and Design firm... Process Plus adopted the tagline “Our Process Revolves Around You”™ in 2007.... a multi-disciplined, full-service engineering and design firm, delivering project management solutions throughout all phases of the project.... When you have an "Accomplishments" section that includes lines like Ranked One of the Largest Engineering and Architecture firms in the tri-state by the Cincinnati Business Courier (NB: "Tri-state" here means the corners of Kentucky and Indiana that are included in the Greater Cincinnati conurbation) it becomes pretty obvious that all of this stuff was inserted by a COI editor or PR professional who has made a superficial study of the Wikipedia notability guideline. But nothing here indicates that this business's achievements amount to anything that will be remembered as significant by future students of history, culture, or technology; as such, it's not an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What engineering expertise do you cite to say Process Plus is not "a multi-disciplined, full-service engineering and design firm, delivering project management solutions throughout all phases of the project". A google search shows that not all engineering firms are full service, meaning they only focus on one phase of engineering, like feasibility, or construction. Even more engineering firms are not mult-disciplined, which means they only focus on one deliverable for clients, like automation, civil engineering, architecture etc. Most focus on one, or two, not multiple. How else would a person say they service more than two industries? If you lived near the tri-state area and owned a business it would be a noteable accomplishment if it were listed as one of the top 25 largest engineering firms in the area. I would also assume that people that attend the University of Cincinnati, which is one of the best design, engineering and architecture universities in the nation, would find it worth being in an encyclopedia, especially if they do not understand what engineering firms do. I personally think people reviewing an article or nominating it for deletion should do some research on the topic they are discussing before they call it PR.--Gijoe216 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)— Gijoe216 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a promotional bent to it and should be cleaned up, but not deleted. The article has relevance for engineers in the Cincinnati area so is significant to those people. We should likewise not delete articles for Jacobs Engineering, Belcan, Fluor, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XenophonXiradakis (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — XenophonXiradakis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone removed the AfD notice on 6 February ([1]) and it was not replaced until today. I'm not sure what impact this has on the outcome of this AfD; I just thought I'd throw it out there. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that I'm going to relist it a third time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is just dressed-up advertising copy. The "sources" are trade journals, or minor mentions in local newspapers, certainly no indication of real notability. Perchloric (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious marketing ploy of a totally unremarkable firm. Existence is established by sources, notability is not. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2011 (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.