Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEOmoz.org: Difference between revisions

SEOmoz.org

SEOmoz.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not appear to have sufficient notability to warrant stand alone article per WP:ORG. For there to be notability, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources are expected. Per the same policy, quoted self published materials and Press Release are excluded. At this the article is based on self published information and there's not sufficient sources that I can find at this point to consider this company genrally notable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I find that support on general notability on company is rather weak. The coverage received in cited mainstream news for national circulation is trivial and significant coverage is mainly in local paper for Puget Sound and Seattle area, the locale where this business is established. per WP:ORGDEPTH coverage of local circulation is not much of indication of general notability. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep — The large amount of prominent coverage at Google Books alone is sufficient to meet WP:N and exceed the trivial coverage outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH. Several books on Search engine optimization repeatedly mention SEOmoz.org and discuss it in depth.[1][2][3] etc. SEOmoz.org is frequently cited as an authority in mainstream news articles about SEO (Hotwiring Your Search Engine; Google a Topic, and the Results Are Based on Popularity, Right? Wrong. Inside the Shadowy World of 'SEOs'. Stone, Brad. Newsweek, December 19, 2005. Net Investment; Your Money Sunday Mirror (London, England), February 26, 2012. Web site search engine optimization: a case study of Fragfornet Gandour, Aurélie; Regolini, Amanda. Library Hi Tech News28. 6 (2011): 6-13. The Goodness in the Evil of SEO Rushton, ErinView Profile; Funke, Susan. Searcher19. 9 (Nov 2011): 30-35.) There's definitely a lot of chaff out there: large numbers of press releases and lightly paraphrased press releases mention this company, especially in the semi-legitimate marketing news media. Nonetheless, it is clearly one of the most notable companies in its field and is treated as such in reliable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment SEO is basically the art of self promotion and referencing each other. Book #2 If you read the intro, it shows that it is the opinions of the author, so its his personal opinion on SEOMoz and its a primary source. #3. a book in which SEOMoz's Rand Fishkin is one of the three co authors dropping his company's names... need I say more? SEOMoz.org has been mentioned about it in mainstream news article, but it was not an in-depth coverage recognizing it as an authority. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Untrue. Search engines are complex. Most webmasters will make serious errors when constructing sites. SEO is the practice of fixing these errors so that the sites have more value for users, and work better with search engines. You ought to avoid sweeping generalizations when you lack knowledge. Regretably there are shady characters who try to perform SEO by gaming the system. The industry rejects this approach. Jehochman ^Talk 12:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The knowledge you seem to lack is that personal attacks on other editors, including claims they're ignorant, are simply unnecessary. Please stop. If your arguments have merit, you should be able to make them without this sort of behavior. Msnicki (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Rand Fishkin, SEOmoz CEO has told me that he's happier not being covered by Wikipedia. The company does have a lot of venture investment and subscribers. This provides an impetus for news coverage, which could make the company notable. They are pretty good at promotion and self-promotion, so when checking sources we need to be careful and critical. It can be hard to distinguish independent coverage from planted stories, such as this one: http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/ITC-Recognized-as-One-of-the-5-Best-SEO-3911508.php. We also need to avoid making this decision on emotions, whether they be love or hate of SEO. Jehochman ^Talk 13:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, good deal of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Question What are some reliable secondary source that covers this company in depth and in line with whats described at WP:RS? I had trouble as did User:Msnicki locating them.
• Keep SEOMoz.org has the top SEO blog and is probably the most credible and widely respected source for SEO expertise. Comments above suggest it clearly meets notability. We should not have a bias against covering marketing topics. Corporate 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I investigated invesp.com. It cleary apears to be SEO insider page and it lists links for a lot of spammy websites. I see some interdependence between SEO websites and mutual promotion. It certainly doesn't appear to meet the burden of substantial, independent, credible and secondary WP:RS.

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all either WP:PRIMARY, trivial or mere blogs. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION, which clearly is what their whole business is about, making themselves and their customers appear more important than they are. Msnicki (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have any evidence to support that allegation? Wikipedia is not a place to gratuitously trash somebody's reputation. Jehochman ^Talk 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking me to prove the negative, that reliable sources don't exist? Or are you just objecting to my pointing out the obvious of what an SEO does? Either way, I don't think I'm trashing anyone, though you seem to be trashing me and I'm not real happy about that. Msnicki (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I ask you again to strike your unsupported accusation that SEOmoz is using Wikipedia for promotion. You may not sling loose words to suggest that somebody is engaging in unethical behavior, unless you have actual evidence. SEOmoz doesn't want to be covered by Wikipedia. I am very sure that they had nothing to do with writing this article. Despite the fact that a lot of bad actors give SEO a negative reoutation, it is unfair to stereotype all people involved in the field, because some are legitimate and ethical. Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

And I'm going to ask you again to stop attacking me. I'm entitled to my opinion. The whole point of an SEO is promotion and anyone who's been through a few AfDs knows that's one of the attractions having an article on WP. That's why we have a discussion of WP:PROMOTION. You obviously have a connection to SEOmoz and its founder – you already admitted as much – and it appears to me you have a bias that interferes with your ability to participate in this AfD in a civil manner. If anything is to be struck, I think it should be your !vote and the rest of your comments and that you should move on to AfDs where you don't have a bias and can participate without insulting and attacking other editors. Your behavior is simply beyond the pale and it certainly isn't helping your case. Please stop NOW. Msnicki (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I know every serious player in the SEO field. Your opinion is fine. The problem is you have assumed that SEOmoz is engaging in self-promotion. I'm quite sure they aren't. As for my !vote, did I !vote keep or delete? Since I wrote my !vote I know that it was a comment, meant to shed light on these matters, not sway the discussion one way or the other. I don't care at all if the article is kept or deleted. What I dislike is people jumping to assumptions of bad faith against SEOmoz or SEO professionals in general. Jehochman ^Talk 18:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like assumptions, don't make them. I have not claimed this was self-promotion, merely that the article appears to be promotion. Pretty obviously, there are editors here, like you and Eclipsed (who's self-declared) who have a WP:COI. SEOmoz's own blogs (e.g., here) talk about spamming other sites as a means of promotion and one obvious way beyond just blatantly spamming them yourself is to get friends to do it for you. More to the point, most editors on WP are anonymous, which is one reason why personal knowledge doesn't count for squat. (From WP:No original research, "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors.") You have no way of knowing how your personal knowledge stacks up against mine or Cantaloupe2's. It takes sources, not repeated assertions that you know better to establish notability. So enough of the personal indignation and silly talk of bad faith and superior knowledge. I don't buy it. Msnicki (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 02:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - WP:GNG: Geekwire, Venturebeat, Techcrunch, Forbes, O'reilly media. I would say that covers it. --Nouniquenames 16:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good until you go look at those sources. The articles in Geekwire, Venturebeat, Techcrunch, Forbes's and O'Reilly are all basically blog posts, interviews with the founder (making them WP:PRIMARY) and routine coverage of company press releases. I haven't spotted anything that rises above the routine. So rather than list the names of bunch of publications, how about identifying the specific articles in those pubs upon which you base your claim that SEOmoz is notable. I don't see it. Msnicki (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Re: GeekWire. I personally find it to be a heavily biased sourced. Many cited articles were local Puget Sound & Seattle WA publications. What about GeekWire? "GeekWire is an independent technology news site and online community based in Seattle, Wash.". "Editor’s note: SEOmoz is a GeekWire annual sponsor. ". Who's one of the prominent sponsors for them? SEOMoz of course. I lean towards borderline paid inclusion and a hint of local companies scratching eachother's back. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - standard searches confirm there are enough significant mentions in reliable sources to show notability of this company. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 18:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so which specific sources do you rely on? Anyone can claim it's out there somewhere if you don't have to identify anything specific. A lot of WP:GOOGLEHITS doesn't count. Msnicki (talk)

I cited Newsweek, Information Today, the London Sunday Mirror and others above which verify the site is an authority in its field. Besides my pointing to three book citations, out of the 800 hits at Google Books. There's more at Google Scholar. It is disingenuous to keep complaining that you haven't been given both specific citations, and large volumes of search hits. I'm suspicious of SEO companies too, and I find them distasteful, and no doubt many Wikipedia articles about this industry are astro-turfed and should be deleted. But this one isn't even close. The burden is on those who want to delete to refute not just one or two citations, but hundreds of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

These are the essence of trivial mentions. And you're wrong: The burden is on those arguing that the subject is notable to provide the evidence, not for those of us who question it to explain why WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid. Msnicki (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment I can't access the full article on highbeam. In Information Today, SEOMoz was a mere foot note. Mentioned != featured. I have some doubt Brad Stone is completely neutral. No big surprise SEO talked about this coverage where they offer a link to Brad's site. Impartiality or back-scratching? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment@Dennis major COI? I just happened to take a look at your user page and I see that you work for a company called Tableau software. I see SEOMoz.org getting mentioned on blog posted on Tableau here. I see Tableau getting talked about on SEOMoz 1 2 and apparently a business relationship going as far back as 2010 here. I think there's a strong COI as it appears they're your business partner. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. All it really takes to establish WP:NOTABILITY is basically two good articles of, say, 1000 words apiece, actually about the subject in WP:Reliable sources by authors having no connection to the subject offering more than routine coverage of the subject's press releases. I haven't seen those articles. All I've seen so far is a lot of vague WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments that with all those hits, the coverage must be out there someplace, plus some needless insults and bullying. That's not good enough. I've tried chasing down those claims and I can't find the substance. If there's really that much coverage, it shouldn't be that hard to identify two good articles. Msnicki (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)