Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Press Association


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Press Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertisement The Banner talk 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic is clearly notable, and if it reads like an advertsiement to you, The Banner, simply reference it and rewrite it using neutral language.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  19:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, and in 25 years it is still written as an advertisement as nobody seems to care. But even the slightest digging made clear that the author is a professional marketeer working for a corporate client. Not illegal, but I I prefer to use WP:TNT. If it is really a notable club, it should not have needed a marketeer to get an article. The Banner talk 09:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the article? This is not about anything resembling a club in the slightest. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read the article, but did you read the article Club? I quote: A club is an association of two or more people united by a common interest or goal. The Banner talk 08:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not every association of two or more people united by a common interest or goal is a club, for example limited companies, military units and political parties fit that description, but are not clubs. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep wp:snow. This is a major press organisation in the UK, that shares stories between news agencies, a bit like Reuters. Finding third party source on the agency will be hard because they report the news, a bit like finding third party sources on the BBC or CNN.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Such a well known organisation that it would be absurd for WP not to have an article. It is highly unsatisfactory as it stands, not because it is an advertisement but because it is little more than a directory listing, but that is not ground for deletion. As Martin451 points out, sources are limited and like many other commercial organisations the information needed must come mainly from within it, directly and indirectly. 'Independent sources' is a myth in WP in such cases - either they are using information the organisation provides, or it is in some sense made up. Company reports are best because they are audited and regulated despite their limitations, but I cannot get the latest copy to download properly from the PA website. The biggest nonsense in WP is where company profiles published in business pages are proclaimed as independent and reliable. It may come as a shock to some that the writer is unlikely to have spent months finding out for herself, and even then she would have been relying on company records. In reality she will have used a press briefing and perhaps the company reports, and that is not even going into the circumstances in which it was written in the first place. The article refers to a history of the PA written in 2001 by a former member of staff not available online, and content from that would be invaluable in the article, but it would be of little help for the current organisation. --AJHingston (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Article badly needs editing, but the Press Association is an important and long-lived organisation. There's a lot of media coverage of the Press Association and its parent company PA Group. Arguably this isn't independent coverage, but with most British media buying from them, and staff moving back and forth, it's going to be hard to get 100% independence. There's also a book Living on a Deadline: A History of the Press Association by Chris Moncrieff, a former PA employee, though independently published. Here's a bit of coverage from other media. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, because this nomination is simply absurd. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Ridiculous nom: even the proposer agrees that the subject is a notable one. Yes, the language could be construed as being biased, but that's a case for re-writing, not deleting. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That i why I suggest WP:TNT, because it is easier to remove this marketing language all together and start all over again. Everybody is complaining about the languages, but nobody acts upon it. Removal is then the better option. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: This article is about the largest news agency in the UK.  The article isn't even that bad, save for some promotional language in the intro. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 09:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Immediate keep -- EVen if it is full of ADVERT language. This is an extremely notable organisation.  The fact that it needs cleaning up is not a ground  for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2013 (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.