Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Publishers 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Professional Publishers Association

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable org, very little independent coverage, everything is a press release rehashed. CUPIDICAE💕 02:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * In agreement with that the original article was under-par, but I have attempted to make some improvements to the article with citations thanks to Google to demonstrate notability. There are some questions/things I've put on the Talk page, that I am unsure about, and I believe more experienced editors may be able to help. -> Talk:Professional_Publishers_Association.


 * I have added new citations that should establish notability – namely Jason Whitaker's book (ran for 2 editions, that has an entire chapter on the PPA) and additional sources (in addition to the ones below) to support the PPA Awards notability. The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * delete and/or re-draftify - this is basically an advert - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Edited the article to make it less advert like and included sources from perennial resources like Newsweek (who call the PPA a "respected industry body") and Business Insider The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This academic article, errr, academic news snippet(?), does claim that "PPA (Professional Publishers Association) awards-known in the industry as the Oscars of the magazine world". There is similar praise of its award here. And the organization seems profiled in depth in this book. It seems to roughly meet WP:NORG/WP:GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – as per my revisions and arguments above. The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There are now plenty of independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Ase1este charge-paritytime 20:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Jumping back on this to give clearer rationale for a Keep
 * Firstly WP:ORGCRITE and WP:GNG
 * News of the name-change for the organisation in 2011 itself achieved significant coverage in WP:MULTSOURCES multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cited in Oxford_Reference, Campaign_(magazine) , New_Statesman , Press_Gazette . Was overkill to cite all them all about the name change, so I chose the most publicly known coverage, New_Statesman
 * Other significant coverage by Mediatel plus there are pages of verifiable news on Google that discuss the organisations work, events and awards not to mention this book (printed in 2 editions) that has a chapter specifically about the association.


 * Certainly meets WP:NORG and more specifically meets WP:NONPROFIT
 * Non-commercial organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
 * 1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The PPA is the national association in the UK for publishers dating back to 1913, with full records on Hatads since 1942 . Every source demonstrates that this is a national organisation.
 * 2) The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. (As above)


 * Plus the additional consideration: The organization’s longevity (since 1913) – history of the organisation in this book and news of centenary celebration, members (over 200 of the UK's most notable publishers in 3 different sectors) and major achievements (see PPA awards section and above that the awards have been proven notable). The awards itself could have its own page IMHO. Said to be the "Magazine Oscars", plus this and this citing it is one of two most "prestigious awards in journalism: The Cleaning Laddy (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks to me like it meets WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2021 (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.