Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEMrush (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. The points made around the low quality of sources and lack of in-depth coverage have not successfully been refuted. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

SEMrush
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable SEO company. A previous AfD closed as keep as one editor refbombed some sources. But as my analysis shows below, these sources are problematic and not enough to establish notability. Similar to Articles for deletion/Ahrefs. Source analysis (numbering according to this version): Out of all sources, the best one is No. 9 (also copied to No. 12) but not to establish notability on itself, and it looks a bit routine too. Regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 07:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Alexa listing available for every site
 * 2) WP:TRIVIALly mentions SEMRush twice in a 400+ page book.
 * 3) Another book that trivially mentions SEMRush.
 * 4) Book by a SEO professional. Mentions SEMRush along with many other SEO tools. At the pages, it's more substantive than other books but still trivial imo.
 * 5) Trivial. Listed among many other SEO tools and companies. Most substantive mention is a three sentence paragraph.
 * 6) SEO site, non RS
 * 7) non RS site and interview (not independent)
 * 8) non RS blog on some corporate website
 * WSJ, perhaps the only reliable source used here, but I believe the coverage to be WP: ROUTINE.
 * 1) HuffPost contributers, basically a blog. See WP:RSP listing.
 * 2) press release
 * 3) copied reference, same as No. 9
 * 4) WP:TRIVIAL mention of SEMRush on the last two sentences.
 * 5) Press release
 * 6) Press release
 * 7) Forbes Contributers, basically a blog. See listing just below WP:FORBES
 * 8) SEO website, non RS
 * 9) SEO website, non RS
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  07:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  07:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. The “Wordpress for Dummies” book goes beyond a trivial mention; it includes a decent explanation of what the tool does (just underneath Google.com). Also the book from O’Reilly publisher and the Wall Street Journal article are good sources. The  Huffpost article by Robyn D. Shulman  and Evening Standard articles are also both valid sources. I’ve added some more sources to the article. The subject seems to be widely covered in SEO books. Pesa881 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * HuffPost Contributers is basically a blog with no editorial control. (See WP:RSP listing below WP:HUFFPOST). Evening Standard's article is routine coverage of "tech startup" profits and mentions the subject in the last two paragraphs only. These are not valid sources. The books mentions are also trivial. I've outlined these points in the original nomination also. Out of the new sources, only PCMag is substantial. Toronto Sun and CBC also only trivially mention SEMrush. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 11:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Notable company, having well reputation may pass WP:CORP. But the article content needs some improvement in tone as some cases violate WP:NPV I suppose.--Harryishere (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Blocked for UPE. MER-C 08:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs cleanup and improvements.  Wiki Macaroons Cinnamon? 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Weak keep and stubbify. Ugh. I hate to keep an article on SEO clearly written, either by an affiliate or an paid editor, for the precise purpose of optimizing its own search result. And yet: is a real source. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also in ProPublica uses it as a source. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've addressed both of these sources in the original nomination. WSJ seems to be routine coverage of funding rounds, and ProPublica has a trivial mention of it as a firm. How are they enough to establish notability? TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Changed to weak keep per your note. ProPublica is highly reliable, in my view, so their using it as a source counts in favor of SEMrush's notability. I respectfully disagree on whether the WSJ coverage is routine: it's specifically about SEMrush, not about general trends in venture capital. I also found (from The Australian; paywalled; it also cites SEMrush as a source for traffic data, e.g., "Data collected by SEMrush shows massive increases in visits to leading websites such as liquor specialist Dan Murphy’s") and  in the New York Times (interview with one of their staffers, who says he uses SEMrush—indicates that a major newspaper views it as notable enough to cover in a personal tech column). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and update. Once upon a time this was a browser extension and free tool; it is now offered by third parties in the Cloud. They have gone to the SaaS model (google result) and as such, the article needs cleanup and updates. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable software. This article can be pared. Wm335td (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As things stand, this topic is about the *company* and not the software. My opinion is that if the topic was changed to be about the software rather than the company, there are sufficient sources to establish notability of the software. The various Keep !voters above refer to the software. WP:NCORP is the applicable guideline. As things currently stand, the company fails the criteria for establishing notability and I would normally !vote to Delete.  HighKing++ 18:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * are you sure about that? to me, it looks like the software is even more non-notable. ProPublica, WSJ, and the Times sources pointed out above are all mentions of it as a "search analytics firm", and don't really mention it's SaaS product. I don't see any reliable sources about the SaaS product; the best source for SEMrush SaaS seems to be the NYT blog, and I don't think that contributes to notability, since it's a blog. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 20:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , for me the real acid test is whether there are any independent reviews of the product that provide in-depth detail. While NCORP is primarily focused on organizations of all types, it is also the applicable guideline for products. There's a good review of the product on page 68 in "Teach Yourself VISUALLY Search Engine Optimization (SEO)" and another good review of the product at page 40 in the book "How To Recognize NEGATIVE SEO ATTACKS: Eliminate Them & Recover From Google Penalties". In addition, there are numerous reviews in various magazines such as PCMag and Tech Radar. That said, I don't see a whole lot in this article that would necessarily make it into an article on the product.  HighKing</b>++ 12:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the best sources seem to be blogs and promotionalism, and that isn't good enough.  DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not seeing the subject passes WP:CORP. Majority of the articles available over the internet are about its product that also promotional contents due to their affiliate marketing program. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 12:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per what the 'keep' votes are suggesting. There are reliable sources covering this, so keep and update would be the best option. Idealigic (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As a freelance writer who often writes about marketing topics, I can provide anecdotal data regarding the software's notability. I am being paid to write a review of it right now, most likely for a program affiliate, and I am certainly not the first. However, the software was already familiar to me because I have seen it referenced often in articles about marketing in general. It's definitely possible that those articles were also linked to affiliate campaigns, but that does not change the fact that if it has reached the point where *I* am familiar with the name, then - one way or another - it is definitely notable within the industry. Because I am only on the very fringes of that industry. What I don't know is whether that is only because the affiliate program is so successful, or if the software itself has gotten so much attention because of how good it is. And, of course, anecdote is not data. So, if your definition of notable depends at all on worthiness, then this edit may be completely worthless. If it means well-known, however, then I think you have to accept that anyone with an interest in digital marketing has probably heard of it, if not actually looked into it...which is what I'm doing now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlynnt (talk • contribs) 01:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.