- 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The result was Keep, nominator withdrawn. Non-admin closure. -- Jimmi Hugh 14:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Interactive PR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Yet another "Web 2.0" Neologism, completely unsourced and non-existent on google, beyond blog references. I would like to withdraw on the grounds that i am a rushed imbecile. Apologies. Jimmi Hugh 18:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Non-existent on Google" --?? It gets 24,800,000 hits! Tomcat66 g500 19:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well i get around 30,000... but i went through the first 15 pages, and as i said in the nom. it is all in unknown Blogs or used as a term without description. There are not numerous serious articles on the word and it is clearly not encylopedic content. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- <points to http://www.prfirms.org/resources/interactive/> It is used on The Council of Public Relations Firms Website and, I would consider that something other than an "Unknown Blog" ChrisLamb 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah i am really stuffed for a rebuttal after this one. -- Jimmi Hugh 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the entry is okay then?71.210.155.136 20:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now: per sources provided above (e.g. Council of Public Relations Firms), but still on the fence as to whether there's enough there to create an encyclopedic article. MastCell Talk 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also an interactive PR event <points to http://www.eventme.com/Event.aspx?Event=eoBYQ2ktoxQ&In=New-York-City> as well as a public group devoted to the topic on Ma.gnolia <points to http://ma.gnolia.com/groups/interactivepr> among other uses. The comment about "unknown blogs" also struck me as inappropriately condescending, but Jimmi Hugh is forgiven.71.210.155.136 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironic that you are almost condescending to me in this post. My apologies to all, if an admin doesn't clear it soon, someone should Ignore All Rules and save me a tiny little bit of embarasment. I'll make sure not to rush next time. -- Jimmi Hugh 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What will it take to clear this? The article isn't perfect, but that's why I posted it here -- so the community can help improve it. Deleting it isn't the answer. Hope you are okay now Jimmi Hugh.Tomcat66 g500 14:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well would you say the rule of waiting for an admin to end this is preventing us from improving wikipedia? I would say so, so i'm going to ignore all rules and close it myself. -- Jimmi Hugh 14:33, 26 June 2007 (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.