Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social media 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 keep. The consensus was that this page meets notability standards. There are issues but these can be resolved by editing. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Social media optimization

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Following the guideline of WP:sources most of the referenced sources appears weak. It seems like the primary purpose of this article is to drive traffic to websites referenced and WP:promotion authors. I feel that it needs to be almost entirely rewritten with sources that are credible and have no commercial interest in inbound traffic generated through users going to their site. That is if general consensus is that this entry is encyclopedic at all Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: With a few million Google hits (I went several hundred deep in unique hits before I gave in), it's difficult to argue that this is a WP:NEO violation. If the nom wishes better sources, nothing prevents him from tagging the article - article cleanup is not within AfD's purview - but this looks like a WP:BEFORE issue.  Did the nom make any attempt himself to find sources he liked better?   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  18:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep can be edited to address Cantaloupe2's concerns. WP:SOFIXIT or at least add some tags. --Kvng (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: no valid reason stated for deletion, but I encourage Canty to start improving the article.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:27, 8 September 2011 (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.