Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Press release agency


 * 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   redirect to Public relations. The quality of an article at the time of redirecting, such as a lack of reliable sources, does not affect it's viability as a redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Press release agency

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As far back as February 2011‎ this article was quite rightly proposed for deletion on the grounds "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". The PROD was removed without any reason being given. However, the reason still applies, and the article is still no more than a dictionary definition, well over two years later. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect: Redirect to Public relations. This is really a bad article. The topic itself, however, is a valid one -- notable and necessary -- and one that does relate to news and journalism in multiple ways, especially production. My rationale would be Write the article first, which would not stop someone from picking this back up when there is interest and posting it to main space in a developed form. I would rename such an article Public relations firm. I want that to be emphasized: valid topic, huge amount of sources, and the potential for a variety of content. But the nominator is right as currently it is only a definition and not an article. Crtew (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: If someone makes a WP:Heymann effort, I will change my vote. Crtew (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see a reason to redirect this article because, not only it is a stub, there are no references found on this article at all; just blank without references or sources from my mind. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:03, 9 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.