Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White or black hat


 * 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. If anyone wants to merge any of the verifiable content I'd be happy to userfy a copy for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

White or black hat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fork of search engine optimization that mainly duplicates same content and then adds unreliable, unnecessary details or spam. An unnecessary page. Anthing useful can go in the main article. Jehochman Talk 12:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete Has a silly title and not much else to recommend it. Warden (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Anything useful should merge to search engine optimization or Spamdexing which covers the Black hat side Ace of Risk (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Ample coverage found. If you had trouble finding valid results in the massive number of results, you shouldn't just declare it had no coverage, but instead found a way to sort through it.    By searching for "White hat" "black hat" "search engine optimization" I got results.  The New York Times has an article .  Macworld has one also.  These and others do cover it in detail, explaining the practice, what it is, how it works, and what the results are, who has used it to make their company worth vast amounts of money, etc.   D r e a m Focus  17:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Newsweek has an article on it on its Daily Best., and Information Week covers it as well.   D r e a m Focus  17:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just confirming that these terms are widely used to classify spammers and hackers in "good" and "bad" categories. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Ace of Risk. Move useful info to search engine optimization or Spamdexing as needed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:55, 22 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.