Hello, RoryGlover25, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Online Audience Optimization, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{ help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The article Online Audience Optimization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not a distinct concept

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Online Audience Optimization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.amplifymm.com/what-is-online-audience-optimization. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Adam9007 ( talk) 00:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because

• it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Much of your text is either unsourced or referenced to sources that are clearly not neutral third-party sources, even you identify some of them as proponents
• I get no sense of why this is notable. The fact that it's an idea shared by some people doesn't make it notable, and you give no relevant data on take-up or value, nor do we get any genuine third-party coverage
• The Difference between SEO and OAO is an entirely unsourced, fact-free opinion piece, depressingly WP:HOWTO and unencyclopaedic. Let us imagine a person who is searching for 'best jackets'. is not factual writing
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.

• The whole thrust of the article is to promote OAO; you mention only proponents of the idea, with selective quotes, but give no indication that anyone disagrees with your opinions
• You added url links to supporting companies. There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. that's particularly the case when they are spamlinks whic serve no purpose in supporting the text and just link to the company page. If the companies have Wikipedia articles, wikilink to them, if they don't just have the name
• Examples of unsourced or non-neutrally-sourced claims presented as fact include: the heart of OAO is understanding the motivation behind search queries and creating high quality content to correlate... searchability and visibility are no longer the most vital aspects of search marketing but "what is now important is to make a connection with your business’s audience"...— and so on Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You say that you don't have a conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject, and I'm prepared to assume good faith. I can restore the deleted text to a user subpage if you wish, but you need to have a rethink about how to write an encyclopaedic piece. Search engine optimization isn't a flawless article, but it is factual and structured, whereas yours is vague about the process and consists mainly of quotes from people telling us it's the best thing since sliced bread, with no dissenting views or independent evaluation

I hope this clarifies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply