Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Optimization, Inc.


 * 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. While the group has been mentioned and its founder interviewed by numerous reputable publishers, there's a rough consensus that these sources do not have the depth or objectivity to constitute a body of significant, independent coverage. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Search Engine Optimization, Inc.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company with a high risk of being self-promotion. Of the references given, most are either self-published, online rankings, or (at best) mention the subject in passing (e.g., one mention in a list of fast-growing companies in San Diego). While it's difficult to search for this company's name, nothing else prominent from independent, reliable sources appears to come up. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of notability, I'm inclined to lean toward the risk of advertising being too high. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional piece, this page looks like a company description on its website. If there is truly notability, then writing a new good article will probably not take more time than converting this into a good article.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This page should not be deleted because it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically in that the organization has coverage from reliable outside secondary sources in regards to software the company has released from download.com, ComputerWorld, and PCMAG. I have also established notability as the company has received awards from outside sources such as Search Engine Land, Inc. Magazine, Search Engine Watch, San Diego Business Journal etc... These sources exhibit depth of coverage as well as a regional and national audience. If you feel this page still does not meet the notability guideline, please specifically state why and what specific sections and language are believed to be advertising. Bughunter92 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 06:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I upgraded the article a bit today.  Scanning the footnotes, there are a lot of reputable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC) I edited this article as a result of using the "Random Article" button so I don't care much what happens to it. However, here is a list of the cited sources, many of which seem like acceptable and reliable secondary sources (obviously that does not include a few of them like #7 and #12): &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP and therefore GNG. The references fail to meet guidelines on establishing notability. Perhaps those editors above who !voted to keep could point me to the references they believe are acceptable and establish notability? -- HighKing ++ 10:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Bloomberg L.P.
 * 2) Entrepreneur (magazine)
 * 3) Computerworld
 * 4) Wired Japan
 * 5) Bloomberg News
 * 6) Blackwell, Roger et al. Consumer Behavior, p. 118 (Thomson/South-Western‬, 2006).
 * 7) PRWeb
 * 8) DMNews
 * 9) PC Magazine
 * 10) Download.com
 * 11) Search Engine Watch
 * 12) SEO Inc.
 * 13) San Diego Daily Transcript
 * 14) World Wide Web Consortium
 * 15) Inc. (magazine)
 * 16) San Diego Business Journal
 * 17) Search Engine Land

I concur with &#32;Anythingyouwant, many of the sources are reliable secondary sources. In particular: They establish both regional (as the company is in the San Diego area) and national notability (as many of these outlets like Download.com, PC Magazine, Computerworld, etc... are National) -- HighKing  out of the sources listed which do you believe are not acceptable and why? Bughunter92 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Bloomberg L.P.
 * 2) Entrepreneur (magazine)
 * 3) Computerworld
 * 4) Wired Japan
 * 5) Bloomberg News
 * 6) Blackwell, Roger et al. Consumer Behavior, p. 118 (Thomson/South-Western‬, 2006).
 * 7) PC Magazine
 * 8) Download.com
 * 9) Search Engine Watch
 * 10) San Diego Daily Transcript
 * 11) World Wide Web Consortium
 * 12) Inc. (magazine)
 * 13) San Diego Business Journal
 * 14) Search Engine Land
 * &#32;Anythingyouwant and Bughunter92 - neither of you have put forward an arguement or reference to policy and have simply linked the publisher to their respective Wikipedia articles. This demonstrates to me that you do not have an understanding of Wikipedia policy in relation to what is required from sources and references to establish notability. Please read WP:GNG to get an idea on what constitutes a reference that establishes notability especially that the source should be "intellectually independent". Take careful note that within the quoted references there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Also note WP:RS and what it has to say about user-generated and self-published content and WP:CORPDEPTH for the most commonly excluded types of references (many of which are in the article).
 * In brief then. Of the sources in the article, taken in the order in which they are listed in the references section:
 * Bloomberg is a standard listing that Bloomberg produces for companies. It is not analytical or objective and it fails since it is simply inclusion in a list of similar organisations.
 * Entrepeneur magazine writes a section on Search Engine Optimization but it is not independently analytical or objective and uses quotes from the CEO of this company.
 * Computerworld article fails for the same reason. It is not independently analytical or objective and uses quotes from the CEO.
 * Wired Japan, same as the two above
 * The next Bloomberg is an advertorial, essentially following the formula of "interview with CEO where he talks about whatever he wants to promote".
 * The "Consumer Behavior" book could possibly be good but the only snippet I can see is where the CEO is being quoted so .. not independent.
 * PRWeb article - fails because the content is generated by the primary source - the company or an executive.
 * DMN article - failus for the same reason.
 * I'm not going to continue. *All* of the other references fail for similar reasons. I've no problems looking at a source if you believe it establishes notability but please try to understand how the reference fits with policy and make an argument about why it should be acceptable as a source. -- HighKing ++ 12:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I listed all of the cited sources and specifically said that "a few of them like #7 and #12" are not "acceptable and reliable secondary sources". So there's no use trying to convince me by arguing against sources like #7 and #12.  I've listed all the sources, and people can look for themselves how they're used in this Wikipedia article.  I disagree that they're *ALL* lousy, but I don't have time or inclination to argue about them one-by-one.  I will say this: over one third of articles at Wikipedia have much weaker sourcing.  And to dismiss a source because it "uses quotes from the CEO of this company" seems pretty silly to me.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, no you didn't "list all the sources". You linked to the publisher's Wikipedia article as if to say "reliable publisher => reliable source" which shows you don't understand policy. And if you can't be bothered debating (with references to appropriate policies) why the references should be kept, then the likelihood is that nobody else will either and the closing admin will dismiss them. -- HighKing ++ 13:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SOURCE: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: That's Wikipedia policy, so maybe someone ought to get off their high horse?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
 * The creator of the work (for example, the writer)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)
 * Perhaps my opening comment would have been clearer if I stated "no you didn't *just* "link all the cited sources". The point I am trying to make is that your links to the various publishers' Wikipedia articles implies "reliable publisher => reliable source => reliable reference". From my reading of the references it was clear to me that they were "advertorials" for the most part and I could not find a single reference that I was happy with. In AfD's in general, a position is seen as stronger when it is grounded in a policy. Your only comments to date are personal opinions such that you "disagree" or to say that "dismissing a source because it uses quotes from the CEO" seems pretty silly. If others read the references they will see that the articles with quotes don't just have a single quote, but completely rely on the quotes provided by the CEO with no evidence of objectiveness. (Apologies if I came across as being on a high horse, shout out if you need any help.)  -- HighKing ++ 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is why I said readers can go see for themselves. They need look no farther than the second source in the article which obviously does not merely rely upon a quote from the CEO (emphasis added): Search Engine Optimization Being a rock star on stage in front of thousands of screaming fans will get the hairs on your arms to stand up. Garry Grant, 46, who used to play with the likes of Bon Jovi and Bruce Springsteen, says he got that same feeling the day he learned his company was ranked No. 1 on Google. The CEO and president of Search Engine Optimization Inc., Grant says top ranking has equaled huge revenue gains: He expects company sales to reach $6 million in 2004, up from $1.9 million in 2003. Not bad for the multitalented computer science graduate, who went from being a rock star to an internet entrepreneur.

Eighty-four percent of Americans online use search engines, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project, which researches the impact of the internet, and ComScore Networks Inc., a provider of marketing information and consulting services. That means getting a high ranking can make or break a business. "You could spend a million bucks on a website, [but] if it's not visible, it's worth nothing," says Grant. Businesses that want top rank turn to search engine optimizers, which provide the "technology, methodology and science of increasing your website's visibility," according to Grant.

Larry Chase, publisher of Web Digest for Marketers and SearchEngineForMarketers.com, says search engine optimization (SEO) isn't for the faint of heart. "This is a very fast-changing marketplace," says Chase. "It's not the kind of field where you learn it once and forget about it." Chase recommends constant reading of industry news to keep up; Grant goes a step further and checks for patents filed by search engine companies to stay ahead of the competition. Editors here will find more objective reporting in various of the other cited sources.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The entire first paragraph and half the second are directly attributable to Grant, a primary source. And the third paragraph has someone else attributing stuff to Grant. -- HighKing ++ 21:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the stuff that I put in bold attributed to Grant? Don't you think there might be some reason why I put it in bold, or are you more accustomed to disregarding emphasis?  I'm done here, bye.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- even after supposed "upgrades", this is still a promo page on an unremarkable private company. Sections include "Clients and achievements", which is typical of such corporate spam. This content belongs on the company web site, not in an encyclopedia. I thus reiterate my "delete" vote from earlier. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are lots of articles at Wikipedia about companies that include sections about rankings, recognition, and clients. For example, the law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is in the same city as Search Engine Optimization, Inc..  So I reiterate my "keep" vote from earlier.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Anythingyouwant's work on the article and per the detailed coverage in Entrepreneur and the significant coverage in this article in the San Diego Business Journal. The article notes: "Garry Grant is the founder and chief executive officer of SEO Inc., a company he started in 1997 out of his kitchen, which quickly grew to encompass his entire house. Every year since inception, SEO has seen profit and has not accrued any debt. Grant created SEO's proprietary methodologies and continues to do research to ensure the growth of the product and the company. SEO's revenues have grown from $1.5 million in 2003, to $5.6 million in 2006. ... Since his daughter was born blind, Grant has always been a contributor for causes with the visually impaired. Even though it is not required, all the work that SEO does is Section 508 compliant, meaning it can be accessed by the visually impaired." Cunard (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is about the company, Search Engine Optimization, Inc. It isn't about the CEO, Garry Grant. There reference you use above comes from an article in relation to "Most Admired CEO Awards" where it is a profile on Grant, not the company, and it is obvious that the article is not a secondary source. -- HighKing' ++ 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Local business journals and business section of local papers are unreliable sources, because they are indiscriminate in the ones the publish and indiscriminate in what they say--most of the content is almost always straight PR. That's so for a least the opening paragraphs in the San Diego Business Journal--they are straight PR and puffery, not even a pretense at objective reporting, primarily about Grant and  by implication about the company.   Entrepreneur's basis for existence is publishing slightly disguised press releases. The article cited is in fact a series of 13 of them for different industries. Read the entire article--the coverage of this particular firm is minimal. In the 3-paragraph section quoted above, everything is either what the  company president says or routine comments about the industry in general.   The two  sentences in boldface are essentially all the actual information. Selective quotation  confuses the issue.  Fragments and listings and PR are not substantial reliable coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 18 April 2017 (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.