Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granular Search engine optimization
- 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Granular Search engine optimization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, unreferenced, no signicant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, original research per WP:NOR, borderline WP:SPAM for company that's claimed to have invented it. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've removed WP:SPAM from the nomination, as the article no longer mentions or links to that company. Top Jim (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. This term is not widely used in the search engine optimization industry, as evident by the 4 search results (including Wikipedia and the external link spam that the nom has removed). Now, normally GHITs don't matter, but when the subject of your article claims to be a term used in internet marketing, four results is just unacceptable. It's a marketing buzzword and a covert advertisement for a non-notable SEO company.--hkr Laozi speak 12:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete for the reasons explained by the Hong Kong Resident. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, and Hongkongresident; coatrack spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no sources about this neologism. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:40, 26 October 2010 (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.