Talk:Professional Publishers Association

Depreciated source
I had a notice saying there is a depreciated source. I checked them all on Reliable sources/Perennial sources and it seems that Bloomberg Reliable sources/Perennial sources seems to be the problem, but it says here that Bloomberg is reliable. Would appreciate any help. The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Solved! Thanks ! :) The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It was easy when it was just the DM, it's a mystery game now there's lots of deprecated sources. Most annoying. I'm not sure how to get the filter to be more helpful ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * . Question. In your opinion, did you think the statement about Edward Enningful OBE and Meghan Markle added any weight to the article? There are a couple of other from more (relatively!) reliable sources eg. from Business Insider, but just wondering if you felt it was necessary information? and Vogue The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Questions, direction needed
1. The PPA accredits some university journalism and publishing programmes as well as recommending training suppliers. I can see that they do, and many different university sites support this claim, but there is nothing written about the programmes. Keep/delete?

2. The PPA is one of the seventeen Gatekeepers of the press pass, United Kingdom Press Card Association. Verifiable, but only via the press-card's own website. Keep/delete?

3. As well as publisher members,[10] the PPA runs an Associate Membership Scheme[11] for industry suppliers. Promotional and I'm not sure of encyclopedic value of this statement. However, an updated list of members could be relevant for encyclopedic value, although it will only be self-verifying. Keep/delete?

Thank you in advance. The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)