Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization
Unable to verify WP:CORP or WP:WEB via a neutral source. All google hits seem to be produced by the organization itself as part of a campaign to inflate the number of google hits. Related article Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals has the same problem and is also nominated for deletion. Big E 1977 01:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Just for clarification's sake, I'm not sure what you mean by "All google hits seem to be produced by the organization itself as part of a campaign to inflate the number of google hits." When I look at the results of a search in Google for the organization, I see 360,000 results for a search of the organization's name (SEMPO), the vast majority appear to be from sites that are not affiliated with SEMPO.  It sounds like you are saying that the organization is responsible for many, if not most of those.  But I don't think that they are. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.Bill Slawski 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:CORP per nom. Even their own press page has only 2 articles, one of which doesn't mention the article subject. Kevin 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some controversy within the wikipedia on the notability deletion policy. I created the entry for the Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization and added to it once. Rather than others building upon the entry, I'm seeling threats to delete it. I am not a member of the organization, but I'm growing a little disgusted by deletion policy based upon notibility. Would you care to define the notibility policy for me in the context of this organization? Have you even bothered to research the topic, or is there a bias in your approach here? I couldn't care less about the amount of Google hits the organization receives, but I had an interest in trying to help improve the wikipedia. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks. Bill Slawski 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You've included SEMPO in this discussion for deletion, too. Is there personal bias in this action to delete? Would you delete the SEO article, too? I'm asking because I've been trying to add to that article in a positive manner, and from what I've seen here, it may just be a wasted effort.Bill Slawski 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've no idea what you're talking about. This the AfD entry for the SEMPO article, as you can see by the title above. In any case, if you want this article to stay you should point out the reason that the company is deserving of an article in an encyclopedia. WP:CORP spells out the notability stuff around corporations pretty well. As is often said: the Wikipedia does not and can not have an article on every single thing under the sun (I've been using the example of the nonexistant Consumed Crustacean's Left Foot article), hence the notability deletions. You just need to prove why the company is notable, using non-primary (unaffiliated) sources. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The confusion is due to the fact that someone added an additional organization and wikipedia entry to this one (Organization of Search Engine Optimization Professionals), discussing both as if they were the same organization. The discussions regarding each should probably be bifurcated - they are not related organizations.


 * Also, the WP:CORP notability requirements don't seem like a very good fit for non profits. You're unlikely to find a nonprofit on the Forbes or Fortune 500, nor product or service reviews for an industry trade group, and stock market indices don't exist for non stock corporations. Perhaps a better measuring stick for a nonprofit, consumer and industry educational group is whether or not the information they share is widely cited.  The list of external resouces I created below is only a small listing of many of the places where SEMPO's information has been disseminated by non-affiliated organizations.   Hopefully the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Business Week, Red Herring, and the others I listed are non trivial enough.  This seems to fit the first requirement of the WP:CORP notability requirements Bill Slawski 06:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, nominator is correct in that the subject cannot be independently verified to be notable. Kuzaar 13:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would references to the organization in places like the Register make a difference? Just curious?  Not familiar enough with the practices here enough yet to know.  cheers. Bill Slawski 03:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some non-trivial resources for SEMPO (If you would like more, let me know):


 * New York Times - | The Media Business: Advertising; Web Marketers Fearful of Fraud In Pay-Per-Click
 * USA Today - | Click fraud's bound to continue, experts say
 * Richmond Times Dispatch | Search-engine pros can click it up a notch
 * Personal Computer World (UK) - | Search engine marketing revs up online advertising
 * The Register | Google and Yahoo! accused of click fraud collusion
 * Ecommerce Times - | Search Engine Ads Garner $5.75 Billion in 2005
 * Red Herring - | Search Ads Rose 44% in 2005
 * Red Herring - | Google Sued over Ranking
 * Information Week - | Google API Extends Advertisers' Control
 * New Scientist - | Wanted! Search engine top spots
 * Revenue Magazine - | Danger: Clicking Ahead
 * CNN Money - | Google: biting the hand that feeds it?
 * Smart Money - | Slicing Up the Online Ad Pie
 * ZDNet News - | Google settlement or not, click fraud won't go away
 * Denver Business Journal - | Search engines are driving more business
 * Business Week - | Click Fraud Gets Smarter
 * Business Week - | War of the Roses
 * New York Post - | GROWTH $PURT
 * Microsoft Small Business Center - | 6 steps to help protect against click fraud
 * Gourmet Retailer Magazine - | Winning on the Web: Stuff That's Cool for Niche Retailers
 * Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | Want to get to the top on Yahoo! searches? Start bidding
 * Chicago Tribune | For the little guy, Internet is leveling the field

Since the group is a non profit organization, it is impossible for them to meet any of the criteria under that prong of the non notable test.

Thanks. (sorry - thought I was logged in) Bill Slawski 05:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your sources are misleading. The first article I clicked, for example, the CNN article (Google: Biting the Hand that Feeds It?) not only failed to establish SEMPO's notability, but also consisted only of the president of SEMPO talking about a notable company. Additionally, note that WP:CORP requires the company itself to be the subject of the multiple nontrivial publications, not that the publications contain material quoted from said company. Kuzaar 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Response to Comment: It's not my intent to mislead, and I don't believe those resources are misleading. CNN wouldn't choose a non-notable organization as a subject matter expert in instances like that, nor would the New York Times, the New York Post, Business Week, the Register, Red Herring, and so on. The surveys that SEMPO has released over the past couple of years have been covered as newsworthy material from notable sources, on topics such as click fraud, online advertising spending, and developing trends in online use and advertising.  A number of the sources I listed above include information about those.


 * They are a nonprofit, and a large part of what they do involves the creation and dissemination of information like that, and in providing a voice for people active in internet advertising. It's the equivalent of being a member of the Fortune 500 for an organization like them to be included in places like CNN, speaking on topics like that.  I am not a member of SEMPO, and I likely won't become one.  I have no bias, and if you decide to delete this article, it's more your loss than mine.  Cheers.


 * Two thirds of the criteria for the three pronged test for notability under WP:CORP are not appropriate, and do not apply to a nonprofit organization. Perhaps a new standard should be created to judge whether or not those organizations should be considered notable or not, for purposes of inclusion in the wikipedia.


 * Let me also add that I bothered to try to do some research, and provide some sources that may be deemed trivial or non trivial instead of just making a statement that there were no independently verifiable sources. You may not like the resources I provided, but I'd ask you to consider them seriously instead of just dismissing them out of hand.


 * One sad fact about this process of pointing to printed resources that are available on the web is that those resources often have gated walls where material is hidden behind subscription based archives. So, for instance, I didn't look at the full text of the article from the New York Times, nor did I include a couple of other articles from Business Week or other resources where one would have to pay to access that information.  Perhaps this comment is more appropriate as a comment on the notability requirements at WP:CORP, but it's still a valid criticism here, too.Bill Slawski 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As indicated by my comment below, I am "on the fence." Are there any independent articles which have SEMPO as its subject instead of "on background"? You mention the New York Times and the Business Week, but if there such an article in those (or Washington Post, etc.), the name of the organization would appear in the summary.  Find one or more of these and it's very likely that I wouldn't be the only one convinced that the article should stay. B.Wind 16:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep:I did an extensive post for SEMPO (Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization) over 2 months ago - which was subsequently removed. It was about the history and impact the organization has made in the timely world of search advertising (ie Google and Yahoo and MSN PPC). This non-profit organization has helped make marketers understand that the world of search engine marketing a visible and viable method of advertising. The term SEMPO has entered into the lexicon for 'what Google sells'. It is a classic non-profit industry or trade (if you will) association that deserves an entry into Wikipedia. The research conducted by the organization alone is reason for entry.

More Marketers Concerned About Click Fraud

Search Engine Ads Garner 5.7 Billion in 2005

US Search Engine Marketers Spent $5.75 Billion in 2005, Says SEMPO

It is a worldwide presence - SEMPO Japanese Research Report

Even if the entry is just a pointer to the industry it represents, that would be valuable. The original extensive entry was deleted and now lost in the 'deletion land' thus depriving wikipedia of this important knowledge. Sad that we have come to this.

Other industry organizations have a presence in Wikipedia and this should be no exception: [Direct marketing association], [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers], etc.
 * Comment. I'm not sure enough on this subject to vote a "keep", but the fact that SEMPO's studies are being picked up by various independent news websites (and IIRC one made it through Slashdot and the like) does seem to indicate some notability under WP:CORP. They weren't merely press releases either. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

''This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'' Petros471 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think WP:CORP was written with non-profits in mind, but in any case the coverage they get in leading news outlets is enough to convince me of notability. If that is not enough, isn't the SEMPO's being sponsored by no less than MSN, Yahoo!, Verizon and Google a sure sign that this is not grandstanding? --Lambiam Talk 14:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Bwithh 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral while the article doesn't truly indicate anything but its sponsors (and notable sponsors do not necessarily mean that the organization is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia), I am not sure one way or another if this nonprofit organization is supposed to have an article here. What makes the American Red Cross, Salvation Army, NAACP, JSTOR, FIDOF, Enough Is Enough, or Boys and Girls Town separate enough from the other nonprofits to merit articles? I don't know; thus the neutral vote. B.Wind 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:CORP criteria for companies/corporations 1, among things. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lambiam and Consumed Crustacean. -- DS1953 talk 04:59, 30 May 2006 (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.