Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Relations Journal


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 09:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Public Relations Journal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A publication of the Public Relations Society of America that is adequately covered in the PRSA article. Suggest a redirect. CorporateM (Talk) 16:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 15:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has scant information and almost certainly can never be expanded. It is unlikely that sources will be identified which critique this journal, as even very popular journals often have no coverage in third-party sources. As the nominator said, the organization behind the journal is much more interesting than the journal itself. However, I routinely argue that journals should have their own articles because such journals are the source of Wikipedia itself and Wikipedia is made better when people are prompted to improve articles about the journals from which it came. I say this even about scholarly academic and professional journals which do not meet WP:GNG if they seem to be popular in their field of expertise, as this one does. At a minimum, this should be a redirect with the categories left intact so that it can appear in lists of journals.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme ( talk )  01:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually, I think it's expandable, and i expect to be able to expand it. The PR people do seem to have some publications which discuss each other, and PR is a recognized field of scholarship as well . The greater problem will be maintaining NPOV, since there are some mutually hostile factions.  DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 10 January 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.