Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Packers Plus Energy 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   Keep (NAC).   S warm  ( Talk ) 06:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Packers Plus Energy Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparently non-notable company; article created by a SPA. No independent third-party sources, despite a sources cleanup tag in place since October 2009. Psychonaut (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC) contribs) 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC) — Egjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Ernst & Young "Entrepeneur of the Year award" shows some notability, and other third party references are there as well. "SPA" is not a specific reason for deletion of an article on a notable company. Collect (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Awards like "Entrepreneur of the Year" generally count little for notability.  This particular article is full of puffery (These systems have opened up previously uneconomic oil and gas reservoirs....) and is therefore spam regardless of whether the underlying subject is notable.  At places, the promotional tone turns the text into patent nonsense that can't be understood well enough to even try to fix by editing. (....started Packers Plus to focus on completion technology solutions.)  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit out the puff. Ernst & Young is, however, one of the largest accounting firms in the world. Collect (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment Ernst & Young "Entrepeneur of the Year award" as it is relevant for understanding the role of Packers Plus Energy Services in Canadian business. More specifically the recognition of Packers Plus by Ernst & Young demonstrates that Packers Plus is a notable company within the oil and gas industry. As the page’s primary editor I would suggest including more recent references on this subject. The Financial Post published a relevant article on the subject January 29, 2010. Egjackson (talk)Egjackson (talk) 10:52, 01 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ernst & Young may indeed be notable, but notability is not inherited. As for editing the article, I'm not really getting a clear picture about what completion technology solutions might be, other than a string of glittering generalities.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment completions technology solutions. The fact that Packers Plus produces completions technology is a key characteristic in understanding the company’s role in the industry. As the primary editor of this page I would suggest providing more objective information on this topic by linking to Completion (oil and gas). This will provide a more general understanding of what completions technology means, increase the validity of the page, and eliminate the advertising tone of the entry.Egjackson (talk)Egjackson (talk) 11:03, 01 February 2010 (UTC) — Egjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * comment It should be noted that "solutions" is one of the spammiest words that could possibly be used in an article, and should be avoided at all costs. It sets off all sorts of alarms in the minds of an editor.-- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply knowing what industry the company operates in doesn't help us understand their notability in it. The article doesn't make any claim that the company is notable even within its industry.  For example, is it the largest or highest earning oil and gas completion company in Canada?  Did it make some novel contribution to the technology behind oil and gas completion?  Was it involved in a famous contract or lawsuit?  If any of these held, that might be some reason for keeping the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment. The fact that Packers Plus won the Entrepreneur of the Year Award in Canada should demonstrate notability itself. So in order to expand on this I would like to edit the description of the company's innovative technology to give a better indication of what is so notable about Packers Plus. The StackFRAC technology that has been created has resulted in successful recovery in previously non-producing tight gas wells. I will find the specific information and source it to edit out the puffery.Egjackson (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Egjackson (talk) 08:10, 02 February 2010 (UTC) — Egjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Googling for "StackFRAC" does turn up some some sources, including several articles on the Oil & Gas Inquirer magazine. Some of the articles are simply press releases by Packers Plus, but others appear to be written by Inquirer staff.  Does anyone know anything about this magazine?  Specifically, is it considered a reliable source within the oil and gas industry, and does Packers Plus have any controlling interest in the publication? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another article covering StackFRAC and Packers Plus, this one from the apparently reputable Oilweek. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Collect. ukexpat (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have redesignated all but the first of Egjackson's "keep" !votes as "comments", only one !vote per user, please. – ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am working to improve the page, considering all the suggestions listed. As is clear, I am quite new at this process. I attempted to add in some information about the StackFRAC technology, although there were some excellent edits from other users already. Just an FYI that I am attempting to fix the page. Egjackson (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Egjackson — Egjackson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Question What is EGJackson's connection to the company?  Guyonthesubway (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the sources.  I did some reorganizing and improvement of a slight promotional tone.  DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: As the primary editor of this page I appreciate the help and will continue to edit the page. I would like to add some additional information on Packers Plus technology, referencing SPE papers, as they are a very reliable source. Part of the issue with the page may be that, although Packers Plus is relevant in the industry, it is a private company. As was added recently, Packers Plus is partnered with Schlumberger, which likely adds some notability. Egjackson (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (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.