Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wojdak & Associates


 * 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 - Non-admin closure to speedy keep on change of only delete vote remaining.  B figura  (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wojdak & Associates
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Zero attempt at notability, using only weasel words from outdated resources to make statements. 100% informative with no content or context beyond basic company facts. Some references are used falsely, most are political opinion publications. Datheisen (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Article was moved while posting AfD, resulting in the above confusion. Datheisen (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I have dealt with these comments at Talk:S. R. Wojdak & Associates. I suggest that people read that whole exchange before !voting. Full disclosure: I am article's creator --Blargh29 (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage it as well, but I'd like to clarify myself a little more. Articles that are nothing but informational and are only notable by personal statement or because they have been listed once or twice in a political editorial newsletter in one state are not automatically notable. More "why?" notability is needed instead of just "who?" Wikipedia isn't just a directory of lobbying firms, so a lot of people might ask for more. Datheisen (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

* Delete The articles cited as references (the ones that are truly reliable sources) don't appear to consitute non-trivial coverage. B figura (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to keep, implied speedy keep on review. -- B figura (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - asserts notability, and the notability is backed up by reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  —Blargh29 (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Blargh29 (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Influential lobbyists typical generate press coverage of their actions, and the sources cited indicate this is no exception. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Speedy Keep after discussion with author; removing nomination. Closing per. Datheisen (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - At this point the nominator withdrew their nomination and closed per that decision. However a speedy keep was not appropriate in this case as there had been another delete vote. Dpmuk (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article asserts notability, and I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz--Milowent (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2009 (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.