Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEMrush


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

SEMrush

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An interview, refspam of mentions does not notability and WP:CORPDEPTH maketh (amusing that the article says it "collaborates" with reuters because reuters mentioned them once in an article..) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I note on finding some stuff on google books, but they are simply brief descriptions of how to use the product rather than about the company Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 12:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Found sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GNG:, , , , , , , , , etc. London Hall (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I was saying above, just in general descriptions of how to use the product, not coverage about the company. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   23:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article purports to be about the product so WP:CORPDEPTH is not clearly applicable. There are a lot of books on SEO and the product is covered in them. Books are reliable. Coverage is more than passing mentions. &there4; WP:GNG is met. Although I do find if funny that a Wikipedia article is a good SEO move for a product and the product here is SEO, the article is legit. ~Kvng (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * article was rewritten to be about the product
 * imo the books are a brief summary of the nature of the content in the vein that WP:NWEB describes as trivial, though an article on the product may be barely notable Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Coverage is clearly above WP:TRIVIALMENTION. You may see rewriting as a nice dodge but it works well and is a nice improvement to the article in this case. ~Kvng (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - I studied marketing at University and this is a product we frequently used. I know that is not reason enough to have a Wikipedia page but its a well known product in the marketing space. I do feel it can be written in a better manner. I am happy to edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geymarfan (talk • contribs) 02:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be adequate RS here to substantiate notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2018 (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.