Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of press release agencies

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) 14:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of press release agencies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The applicable pages here are WP:Indiscriminate (policy: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion), WP:Not catalog and WP:Notability#Stand-alone lists (Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists). To find sourcing, I went here and here but could find nothing to suggest there's coverage for a "List of press release agencies" and there's [[Category:List of press release agencies]] instead, and this was the PROD basis in January. The current appearance of "press release agencies" is a concern in WP:Not brochure since it reads like a basic listing, and not a serious encyclopedia article; equally, the lead is simply a copy of Public relations; the link sources are simply about the public relations business and, likewise, are best suited at the relevant page. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 19:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Press release agencies. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. It is not an indiscriminate list; rather it has a very focused scope, as a list of notable press release agencies. I created this article on 05:44, 1 August 2017‎ (less than two days ago) and am still working on expanding it, which takes time to perform. Also, why was this nominated for deletion in such a rushed manner? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, the nomination says we have both WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Notability lists here, and I actually visit the link WP:NOTDUP only to see there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia and there's also WP:V concerns given the dryness of sources here, not nearly enough to suggest there's full evidence of "List of press release agencies" in coverage. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This list article is not "indiscriminate" whatsoever. Rather, it is precisely discriminate and very narrow in scope. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appropriate list. We have for many years interpreted the inclusion criteria for lists very broadly. This list will of course contain only those which are notable in the sense of having WP articles. It's no more a "Basic listing"than those of any other line of business. List of organization in any line of business whatsoever or any profession are justified when there are at least a few individuals ones notable enough for WP articles. When I first came here, there were challenges to such lists based on the hypothesis that there had to be sources that made such lists to be used as references, but it has since been accepted that the presence of the WP articles is sufficient. I find it difficult to imagine any WP category at this level which should not have a corresponding list. (as distinct from very broad categories such as American people, or very narrow ones which can justify a category to keep the system parallel with other categories, but which be combined into a more comprehensive list article). A list is appropriate bother for identifying and for browsing, because it can give some identifying detail not present in the category. Since this is just such an obvious keep as our tens of thousands of other such lists, I am puzzled to see the motivation for selecting this one for an AfD. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Re: "I am puzzled to see the motivation for selecting this one for an AfD", the nom has rapidly nominated several articles I have created for deletion in the last few days. See their recent contributions, which denotes their deletion notices to my talk page for more information. Perhaps I slighted the nominator somehow somewhere, and they are seeking to "get even" by getting my articles deleted. I could be wrong, and I try to assume good faith, but something is awry. I'm a Wikipedia:Autopatrolled user, so new pages I create are automatically approved on the new pages log. Other pages they have nominated for deletion are much older. It seems rather clear what's actually occurring, to me anyway. The nominator is very likely following my edits and working to get my work deleted. See also WP:HOUNDING. Perhaps I will stop creating new articles for some time; that way, I don't have to worry about spurious, knee-jerk nominations such as this, with walls of text copy-pasted from policy/guideline pages, wasting my time defending works that are typically appropriate on English Wikipedia. It's a real time waster. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my intention was to imply this qy, but without mentioning any specific person. I try to minimize ad personam arguments at afd. I do not, for example, mention at AfD the puzzlement felt by those trying to remove promotionalism in response to your defenses of borderline notable promotional articles. DGG ( talk ) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. You seem to be ignoring valid hounding concerns, though, by not addressing them, instead discussing other AfD discussion I have participated in, which is entirely off-topic. I view it as fair game to present actual events that have occurred relative to this article being nominated for deletion, which is objective. However, I digress, as AfD decorum is based upon topics, rather than users. My !vote remains for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Press release agencies. And per WP:LISTPURP. Despite the detailed nomination statement, there is no policy reason to delete. There is nothing indiscriminate about the list and basing it on '"nothing to suggest there's coverage for a "List of press release agencies"' is just plain silly. That ain't how it works. You know what also probably doesn't have any press coverage? Category:Press release agencies and every other category we have. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:LISTN. A valid list for the given industry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is good information that serves the purpose of Wikipedia. I also wonder why this was nominated, and even has a single delete vote. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.