Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search engine optimization copywriting

Search engine optimization copywriting

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

Most of the contents looks original research. If anything, it is just a step of SEO and maybe worth a sentence or two in the main article. A stand alone page dedicated to this step does not have adequate WP:N in its own step to be worthwhile. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to be a WP:COPYVIO from Livejar, in which case it could (have) be(en) speedied.

Failing that, it falls foul of WP:HOWTO, and nom is right that it could likely form a brief paragraph in SEO (which it could do even if deleted). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe site you mention could be a scraper site which basically republishes things from Wikipedia. I put it up for Afd because there was hardly anything written in detail on SEO copywriting and seeing that there's only one reference with the whole thing written like an original research/personal knowledge essay, I figured the new section might as well be entirely rewritten instead of merging this into it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very possible. Deletion as HowTo does seem the easiest option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into SEO, the professional role section. There is a difference between SEO writing and SEO copywriting, the latter of which is more persuasive and 10x as expensive to hire for (highly specialized skillset). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithandteam (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't able to find reliable sources to back it up and without them, it's original research. I think a good place for you to start is to find sources. I couldn't find them. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[article I wrote on the subject back in 11 -- I'll work on the article more once we decide to keep or merge (deletion seems out of the question) @SmithAndTeam (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]