Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEO 2.0

:{{la|SEO 2.0}} ([{{fullurl:SEO 2.0|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEO 2.0}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable neologism. Bloggers frequently talk about {something} 2.0, but a few mentions does not make the term worthy of an encyclopedia entry. The references cited in this article are either completely off-topic or low impact, meaning that the information is not verifiable. Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Yup, looks like a WP:NEO to me. No significant coverage or attempt by the industry as a whole to pin down what this term may mean. It's vapor until then. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable neologism. No coverage in reliable sources (in any substantial way) Bfigura ^(talk) 01:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Several credible sources have now been added to this entry's references among them, Matt Cutts and the SE Rountable. Janbellows ^(talk) 09:39, 52 February 2009 (UTC)
• Just a minor note on the above-mentioned Cutts reference: it seems the only reference to SEO 2.0 is in a visitor's comment. A comment on a blog entry (yes, I know, Matt's famous, etc. etc.). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• {{takenote}} User:Janbellows has been indef blocked as a sock puppet account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ClintonCimring. This article appears to be pure advertising. See [http://www.searchenginepartner.com/First-page-placement/Top-10-Ranking.html this web page]. Jehochman ^Talk 09:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect — It looks like a rather poorly written article, but based on the recently added sources, it deserves a mention in search engine optimization. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per LinguistAtLarge; there is not sufficient content or sources for an article, but quite possibly for a mention in the existing SEO article. --Bonadea (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Having waded through the sources, it's obviously not a notable concept. --Bonadea (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• This concept has not been mentioned in any reliable sources at all. Search engine optimization is a featured article, not a half-written stub. It does not need to be cluttered with promotional material suggested by a banned sock puppet account. Please use all your critical facilities. Don't compromise on standards. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• OK, this is something of a learning experience for me, so please bear with me :-) Also, my gut reaction is "all SEO is evil spam", so I'm trying to counteract that reaction by not !voting Delete too quickly. It seems to me that Search Engine Roundtable is probably a reliable source - at least they have an article which is sourced. But the term SEO 2.0 is only used in an off-hand manner in the Search Engine Roundtable quote, the linked article is actually about Web 2.0. So like the Matt Cutts reference mentioned above, it's not a reliable source for this concept. --Bonadea (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, that is a reliable site. However, a passing mention does not make a term notable. There are lots of things casually referred to as {something} 2.0. Danny Sullivan (technologist) has written a bunch of articles about Search 3.0 and Search 4.0. He's a reliable source, but these fanciful designations are still not notable, because they aren't widely used. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 23 February 2009 (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.