Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video seo


 * 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 speedy deleted per author's request -- DarkFalls talk 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Video seo

 * OK* But clearly you caught me trying to add valuable info you dont have on your site and there are tons and tons of crappy work much worse than mine. maybe they are friends of yours ;-)  Oh well.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.191.223 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A combination of a how-to and a list of external links, written in an advertorial/promotional style. See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not intended as a home for how-tos, not a link directory, not a vehicle for promotion. Karada 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK* - So, I have certainly seen many many many worse pages. I was planning on adding a lot more research type information and sources but now I am going to delete.  Ok, so I cant figure out how to delete...  Go ahead and delete if I cant figure it out before hand.  Sorry for the trouble.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhythmdoctor (talk • contribs) 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Really?* - Ok, Ill delete it myself. Thought it would be a good topic but I am not much of a writer.  Is it the links?  I am happy to remove those but thought they were good sources.  Not advertisements...
 * Delete - As per the above, I couldn't have put it better! --WebHamster 00:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per above. Operating 00:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, violates WP:HOWTO, and contains way too much spam spam spam. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - clear example of CSD G11 (advertising). --Angelo 01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a topic worthy of a better written article eventually. The collection of links is interesting and probably valuable.  Since the article already exists, what's the problem with simply letting it be?  --AStanhope 01:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, lack any notion of being encyclopedic; lists of websites are not appropriate. John Vandenberg 10:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 9 September 2007 (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.