Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off -page 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 move to Off-page optimization. Notable, main thing that needed fixing was the title. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Off -page optimization

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

Article is a little over two years old, has been tagged orphan since Nov 2006. Article may have been originally created as adspam (since cleaned up) (see User_talk:UKsaunders ). Article is basically redundant and useless. (-- Note: Odd style of hypen in article title --) Writtenonsand (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Judging by Google, this is clearly a significant operative function of search engines. It isn't exactly orphaned either - five articles link to it, one of which is an FA. WilliamH (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The name can be fixed by anybody, and is solvable by other methods than deletion; thus, not an argument for deletion. The subject is a major part of how SEO companies operate and should be kept as such.  There is information around, as well as some news that can at least prove "this does what the article says it does". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celarnor (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Possibly notable per, but should be moved if kept to off-page optimization. --Dhartung | Talk 20:15, 22 March 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.