Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Payroll Professional


 * 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)

Certified Payroll Professional

 * ( [ 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These articles do not cite any outside references (other than one advertisement / press release) or claim any notability of the topic, and appear serve no purpose other than to promote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) 14:20, 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)
 * Keep The article comes up with 10,100 pages in Google when searched with quotations. Though no verifiable references are used in this article, IMO this article has potential. With a bit of work, as well as assertion of notability, the article may meet the project guidelines. Jor  dan  Contribs  15:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Notable topic or not, this particular article is spam. Bongomatic (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the articles form 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 articles in userspace if appropriate making sure to avoid the spamminess (although I'm not convinced any of the subjects are particularly notable in accordance with the guidelines and policies of the project). "Certified Payroll Professional" is obviously going to get a lot of google hits but, that doesn't automatically make the "job title",advertising language,group of words notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a job title. It's a professional certification.  You can read more about it in, the first section of which is entitled "What is a CPP?". Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:SPAM.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Google News search. I see a lot of presumably RS in the 173 hits, even if there are a lot which are likely non-independent.  There's plenty of sources with which to write a better article. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the Certified Payroll Professional as professional (certified) titles are notable & has enough (admittedly low quality) Refs to pass WP:N. Cleanup is recommended. Neutral to all others. This shows why AFD Bundling is a bad idea. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  01:02, 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.