Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granular Search engine optimization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO, unreferenced, no signicant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, original research per WP:NOR, ~~borderline WP:SPAM for company that's claimed to have invented it~~. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed WP:SPAM from the nomination, as the article no longer mentions or links to that company. Top Jim (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This term is not widely used in the search engine optimization industry, as evident by the 4 search results (including Wikipedia and the external link spam that the nom has removed). Now, normally GHITs don't matter, but when the subject of your article claims to be a term used in internet marketing, four results is just unacceptable. It's a marketing buzzword and a covert advertisement for a non-notable SEO company.--hkr Laozi speak 12:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for the reasons explained by the Hong Kong Resident. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and Hongkongresident; coatrack spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]