Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Payroll 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. This decision took into account the comments made at the other 4 deletion discussions, and not just the comments made below (three of the five were kept, two were merged). Such "bundled" nominations are usually fine, as long as they are on the same page and not on separate pages. The spread-out nature of the discussion did make closing difficult, almost to the point of relisting. This decision does not prejudice further merging if that is deemed necessary by further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The five AfDs reviewed to reach this decision were:
 * Articles for deletion/American Payroll Association (keep)
 * Articles for deletion/National Payroll Week (keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Certified Payroll Professional (keep)
 * Articles for deletion/Fundamental Payroll Certification (merge)
 * Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association (merge)

American Payroll Association

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

These five articles: were all created in a short period of time by a single user who has contributed to no other article except for a mention to American Payroll Association in the Accounts payable article.
 * American Payroll Association
 * American Accounts Payable Association
 * Fundamental Payroll Certification
 * Certified Payroll Professional and
 * National Payroll Week

These articles do not cite any outside references (other than one advertisement / press release) or claim any notability of the topic, and appear serve no purpose other than to promote the umbrella organization and its activities, including its fee-based certification programs.

Bongomatic (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This AFD is for the named article only. Each of the five articles above has its own separate AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:SPAM.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Google News hits including Newsday, ABA Banking Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Dallas Morning News. Jclemens (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the article is part of a big spam circle at the moment and would require a large amount of work to fix (which although sounding a bit weird is in the case of spam and/or copyvio a valid reason to delete). Rebuild in userspace using reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What evidence do you have about this 'big spam circle'? The article looks keepable, but if it is part of a spam campaign then I'd have to say junk it. Themfromspace (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You just have to look at the group of articles and the activity around them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This one is the main article and should be kept; the others should be merged into here. Yes, it seems to be inserted as part of a COI campaign, but i dont see why that affects matters, hundreds of thousands of acceptable Wikipedia articles started out that way. The main national organisation in afield is notable. If the material were added from the other articles there would be references enough--for one good article only.   DGG (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2008 (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.