Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submit Express


 * 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   no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Submit Express

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Comment from Pierre Zarokian / Submit Express - I would like to offer my own thoughts on this deletion issue. We are one of the first SEO companies since 1998, with plenty of news coverage and notable references. I could share with you plenty of other pages that have less coverage than us that are in WIKI with no objections. I feel a few competitors are trying to take our page down. I ask that whoever have objections to list exact reasons for their objection. Please also note this page has been up since 2013 and once nominated for speedy deletion for lack of references, but it was declined. Please review all the references such as Forbes, Search Engine Journal, Search Engine Watch, LA Times, Wall Street Journal and NY Ttimes.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.181.29 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment from Pierre Zarokian / Submit Express - I would like to offer my own thoughts on this deletion issue. We are one of the first SEO companies since 1998, with plenty of news coverage and notable references. I could share with you plenty of other pages that have less coverage than us that are in WIKI with no objections. I feel a few competitors are trying to take our page down. I ask that whoever have objections to list exact reasons for their objection. Please also note this page has been up since 2013 and once nominated for speedy deletion for lack of references, but it was declined. Please review all the references such as Forbes, Search Engine Journal, Search Engine Watch, LA Times, Wall Street Journal and NY Ttimes.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.181.29 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Contested PROD (see Talk page) My concern is still the same Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH, the citations here are routine and not specifally about the company. JMHamo (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - This was originally created by, who has a history of socks (See Long-term_abuse/Morning277) and it has since been recreated by (SPA account) and contested by . — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMHamo (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 February 2015
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 11:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The purpose of WP:CORPDEPTH is to have enough material to write "more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." This article is more than that, and it's all supported by reliable sources, so I don't see what the problem is. (I don't really care who created it. I'm just looking at the article.) – Margin1522 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you only quote half of that sentence, yes. :P. That's an additional requirement. The full line is Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. ("and", not "or" or "thereby"). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope the fate of this article isn't going to depend on parsing the 20 meanings of "and". But since I think you were interested in the deletionist/inclusionist controversy, my thoughts on that. The problem with the first half of the sentence, like most of the other rules crafted by people who want to keep stuff out of the encyclopedia, is that it's open to arbitrary interpretation. How deep is deep, and how far beyond is well beyond? The danger is that no matter how deep it may be, it's never going to be deep enough. So the second half, coming after what I read as "and thereby", is an attempt to impose a constraint on this demand for unlimited depth. Deep means deep enough to write a non-trivial article. At least that's the only interpretation that makes sense to me. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Weak Delete - The best source -- and it is indeed a good one -- is Forbes. That's the only one that looks to provide significant coverage in a reliable secondary source...which isn't a trade publication. Trade publications count, to be sure, but in the sense that a local paper counts vs. a national paper (important to some vs. important to a broad audience). There are some good industry sources to be acknowledged, like Visibility and Search Engine Journal. So it's borderline, but what pushes it over to delete for me is that all of the best sources are interviews, thus more about Zarokian than the company. That means they count for notability (though I think they make a stronger notability case for Zarokian himself), but are WP:PRIMARY for the purpose of building an article. It's not clear, and I'd be willing to change my !vote upon new sources turning up. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 01:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails Notability (companies). Passing mentions in two RS, the rest of the sources are more or less blatant promoational/self-published. Your average variety spam, burn this and move on. There are thousands entries like this we need to delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is to reiterate what I’ve written previously with regard to this article, on the Talk:Submit Express page: the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines and the article’s subject has extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources; it’s been used in the New York Times as The LA Times as a subject matter expert, and its CEO writes for Search Engine Watch and Sitepoint, which are important search engine media industry outlets. They have also been named by Inc. as one of its fastest growing companies in addition to Deloitte naming it one of its fast 5,000, in addition to its addition as a one of the LA Business Journal and the San Fernando Business Journal's Fastest Growing Companies. In addition, the CEO has been named, by ClickZ (an SEO industry media outlet, which its Wikipedia article describes as a resource for online advertising practitioners) as one if its "37 SEO Experts Those in the Know Follow" in 2014. BlackFireCoffee99 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2015 (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.