Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burns & McDonnell


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Burns & McDonnell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My PROD here still applies because of the concerns, so simply removing some of the advertising contents here but yet not acknowledging or considering the other concerns is not the same thing, since the entire article is an advertisement, I'm not finding anything better at all and, clear from the contents and tone environment, is a PR campaign article, especially that given quickly-passing SPAs and IPs came and changed or moved things, therefore there are no amounts of "supposed trimming or changes" that can fix a naturally formed advertisement. SwisterTwister  talk  16:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per nom - are there any good sources in that REFBOMB? - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as typical corporate spam; 'nuff said. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2016 (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.