- 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 speedy delete. G11, promotionalism for the firm of the same name DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Public relations design
- Public relations design ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible advertising. With no reliable references together with a confusing subject and does not appear to be encyclopedic. Reads like a corporate handbook and has a strange tone. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 04:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable concept, possibly original research. Esquivalience t 04:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:41, 5 August 2015 (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.
- 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 speedy delete. G11, promotionalism for the firm of the same name DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Public relations design
- Public relations design ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible advertising. With no reliable references together with a confusing subject and does not appear to be encyclopedic. Reads like a corporate handbook and has a strange tone. The Average Wikipedian ( talk) 04:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable concept, possibly original research. Esquivalience t 04:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:41, 5 August 2015 (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.