Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimized Searching

: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 redirect to Search engine optimization. JForget 02:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

=[[Optimized Searching]]=

:{{la|Optimized Searching}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimized Searching}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Optimized Searching}})

This seems to be a manual. Does this meet csd? Blue Rasberry 04:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete After all the content that had been copied word for word from http://www.optimizedsearching.com/ has been removed, all that remains is the intro and some references to Google books. It could be redirected to Search engine optimization, perhaps. --bonadea contributions talk 05:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Speedy delete for Bonadea's exact reasons. This campaign by {{user|Kamtech2010}} has been going on for almost two months now. Haakon (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to Search engine optimization, salt Kam Optimized searching which has been repeatedly recreated by the creator of this page, report spam-only, coi, and company name account to WP:AIV. (Will do the latter part myself) --Pgallert (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

:*Comment: Page creator now indef-blocked. --Pgallert (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

~~Speedy delete under g10. Do not~~ redirect to Search engine optimization. (This was the option rejected by the article creator, who expressed a need to get this "published." Now I know why.) ~~This is not a likely search term. Apparently it's just the name of the webpage he was trying to promote.~~ ~~Recommend SALT.~~ Dloh cierekim 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

:Comment Kam Optimized searching has been salted. Reading the creator's talk and and edit history, it's impressive they were not blocked sooner. Dloh cierekim 13:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

:Flipped back to redirect. the title is a valid topic. Dloh cierekim 13:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment I edited the nom'd article bcz it showed up at :Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup and summarized

:: Change Cats calls (mostly aggressively alpha'd spam) to Cat refs

: believing that the usurpation of the role i think of as "first-listed article on the Category, which explains what the Cat is defined by", on that Cat pg & 8 others, was an intentional ~~SOE~~SEO measure by the author, with the intent to spam our users. Investigating further, i find it likely those usurpations are likely to be the result of a clueless editor using an "Article Wizard" that may offer some traps for it presumably uniformly clueless editors. I conclude that my imputation of bad faith to the editor in question (the originator of the nom'd article) was unjustified, and that there is a high probability that no "aggressive use of the alphabetizing parameter" of the Cat invocations was intended. My apologies to all concerned.
--Jerzy•t 21:07 & 23:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Search engine optimization. The article is basically one sentence. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 15:55, 2 April 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.