Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BrendaBooker/SEO 2.0

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User:BrendaBooker/SEO 2.0
The article SEO 2.0 was deleted in an AfD, in January 2009. It was re-created in mainspace in early September this year, by a sockpuppet of a banned user (see page logs), as a response to an advert in Freelancer.com, placed by the company whose owner is named as the person who coined the term. The article was deleted and salted, and this user page subpage was created very soon after that. It is a copy of the article that was deleted on Sep 7; the disgruntled user who created that article has helpfully posted a cached copy of the article as it looked before it was removed. I do not believe that userspace should be used to preserve an article that has been removed, in particular for that reason. I also don't think that the subject is notable enough for an article, all COI questions aside - the references do not show that it is anything other than a marginal neologism that some search engine marketers are anxious to get into general parlance. If they should succeed to do so sometime in the future, maybe somebody unconnected with the company will create an article about the term, but that clearly hasn't happened yet.

Please also see the two SPIs (here and here) and the COIN discussion which I started a little while ago, and where the concerted efforts from a number of IP editors to hide the traces of earlier COI connected to the SEO 2.0 article are documented. bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to the posting on freelancer.com? MER-C 09:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That project was removed - it used to be here. (It was originally found by User:Themfromspace and is listed on User:Themfromspace/linkwatch. This edit tried to remove the link.) The same company has another project, ; if you click on "View project clarification board" the angry comment from a person claiming to be the user who created the previous article, with the link to the cached version of the article, becomes visible. --bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete then. Wikipedia is not a place to popularize neologisms and userspace is not for indefinite storage of deleted content. MER-C 02:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 21:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Created in Sept 2010, and marked "resubmission" - thus this is too new for such a quick MfD. Allow the person some time to work on the dang article - prior AfDs are not a proof that this was not created in good faith, to be sure. Allegations of a person being a sock who has not been blocked for being a sock do not belong in MfD.  Go to SPI first for that allegation. As a result, I discount that claim in weighing any grounds for deletion.  Collect (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete contributions from banned user. Gigs (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons above. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  00:42, 1 October 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.