Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEOmoz.org


 * 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. Flies past WP:N with a speed that could embarass Superman. I'm a bit sensitive to the concerns that the CEO would rather we didn't have an article, but without a concrete problem, or any obvious issue in the article, I don't see how I could justify something like that. Wily D 08:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

SEOmoz.org

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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. 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. &mdash; 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.  -- No  unique  names  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)
 * LOL. I guess you'll need to shop that one to an appropriate board and see if they bite. The decsision to keep or delete this article is going to be made based on the merits of the sources. Anyone can see that the news and books coverage speaks for itself. This ad hominem is noise, and it's disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked, shocked to find rampant conflict of interest in an AfD of article about an SEO. And, Dennis, can it.  You should be ashamed you didn't disclose this on your own.  Msnicki (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I work for a company that has hundreds of customers, and since my work is technical, not in sales or marketing, I don't waste my time trying to keep track of every company blog post, about SEO or any other field, where some random person comes along in the comments section and posts a link to some other web site that might also have a Wikipedia page, that may have bought my company's software two or three years ago. Or sold something to my company; I don't know which. Don't care.What's so hilarious is that mentioning a company in the comments section of a blog post is a "link" and evidence "major conflict of interest", but hundreds of mentions in news articles and books aren't enough to keep an article. All I can say to that is that Wikipedia is not a battleground and when you are so obsessed with "winning" that you start making personal attacks and imagining, Glenn Beck-like, secret evil connections and conspiracies, it might be time to calm down and take a break.Please don't attack any more editors in this discussion; you've done quite enough of that. It's tiresome, and it isn't going to help get this article deleted. There are appropriate venues to make complaints about other editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Get back to us when you've got two good articles, not just WP:GOOGLEHITS and silly indignation. The fact that an SEO(!!) would have lots of hits on Google could not be more meaningless.  Msnicki (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A.
 * B.
 * C.
 * D.
 * E.
 * --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I lettered them for easier dicussion. A,B,C. Local coverage of local audience.WP:ORGDEPTH. D:uncertain if that's a mainstream media. It is based on what subject says, so it is arguably primary source. E: It is from the interview with the subject himself and appears to be a blog section, so it seems to fit the definition of Wikipedia that its WP:OR
 * --Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." WP:PRIMARY in no way defines primary sources as interviews with journalists. You can't (plausibly) just make up your own notability criteria. Media organizations choose interview subjects because they are notable, and that is non-trivial coverage. The fallacy WP:TRIVCOV comes into play too -- the standard is merely that the coverage is non-trival. That's all. Next fallacy is WP:ITSLOCAL; The Seattle Times is a major US newspaper. Folio: the Magazine for Magazine Management has been in print for 40 years.  Oh, and "appears to be a blog"? See WP:JUSTABLOG. I have no idea why you are linking to WP:OR; it's of no relevance to a citation written by one Kevin Casey of Informationweek. I'm not Kevin Casey.You might wish that Wikipedia's notability requirements were something altogether different, but wishing does not make it so. And please don't refactor any more of my comments without permission. See WP:TPO.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An interview is WP:PRIMARY because the subject helps create the article and gets to say whatever he likes. It's his words being printed.  The interviewer may edit it down somewhat but he does not create a secondary analysis.  Interviews are basically never helpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a novel idea, but WP:Notability says no such thing. The essay Third-party sources makes no mention of disqualifying interviews. Maybe suggest a change at Wikipedia talk:Notability and see there is any support for that. But here we apply the guidelines as they are written now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The guidelines and general understanding on WP are very clear that interviews are primary. From WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. ... A secondary source is an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."  From Primary source: "Ideally, a historian will use all available primary sources created by the people involved, at the time being studied. In practice some sources have been destroyed, while others are not available for research. Perhaps the only eyewitness reports of an event may be memoirs, autobiographies, or oral interviews taken years later."  From WP:ALLPRIMARY:  "An author might write a book about an event that is mostly a synthesis of primary-source news stories (which is secondary material), but he might add occasional information about personal experiences or new material from recent interviews (which is primary material)."  See also WP:Evaluating sources, where interviews are given as types of primary sources for numerous disciplines. This is consistent with other scholarly views, e.g., University of Oregon: "Some examples of primary sources include:  ... Speeches, interviews, letters",  Princeton: "Some types of primary sources include ... interviews", Stanford: "Documents such as speeches, diaries, court records, and interviews are considered primary documents." The whole point of an interview is to get the uncolored, first-hand, raw account from the subject himself.  It does not present the interviewer's interpretation or analysis else it would not be an interview.  Msnicki (talk) 18:19, 16 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)
 * You obviously noticed my post, as you replied to it. I did not mention Google in any way (nor any other search engine for that matter).  What, specifically, did you find insulting or bullying about my GNG claim?  (I can only avoid these behaviours if other editors point them out to me.)  -- No  unique  names  03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that INDY is only an essay. -- No  unique  names  03:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to you in my comment about unhelpful behavior. But I do think that merely listing a bunch of publications without identifying the specific articles you rely on is unhelpful in establishing notability.  Msnicki (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the leading organization in the field, according to the sources. The various sources in the subject are in some sense mutually-referential, but this is the case in any specialized subject, and does not make them irrelevant. The 1000 word "requirement" mentioned above is entirely imaginary and has no basis in guidelines or in practice here either--anything that is significantly more than a mention or directory entry is sufficient.As for interviews, it depends on the interview. Interviews which just give the interviewee a chance to say whatever he likes is not really independent & just another form of PR, but a proper interview by a reliable reporter can be a very good source.  DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2012 (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.