Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahrefs

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrefs

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable SEO company. (SEO is a profession known for extreme self promotion and circle jerking so sources need to be checked thoroughly, I'll list them here to show why they don't establish notability (source numbering according to this version)):

(3): A blog post on some corporate companies website.

(4): Ahrefs website, non neutral

(5): Telegraph Connect, basically a blog, kinda like Forbes Contributers (see listing below WP:FORBES). Article by another SEO, Matt Wright.

(6): Get Rich Quick book that mentions Ahrefs only one time, as part of a get rich quick from the internet scheme.

(7): Has one paragraph about SEO tools, Ahrefs is mentioned along with another SEO website.

(8): Potentially RS (Ukrainian website, so someone familiar with that area might want to comment) and in-depth but it's an interview so not independent.

(9): SEO guide listing seven SEO websites, Ahrefs being one of them.

(10): Blog, non RS.

(11): Giant list of companies, mentions Ahrefs once.

(12) and (13): Anothor SEO website, non RS.

That leaves (1) and (2) that might be suitable. Note that 1 is a book written by some SEO professional Eric Enge and published by O'Reilly Media. Also, one might want to look into this, specially considering the history of the editor who accepted the draft. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The UPE is an immediate turn off. A before search I conducted doesn’t show the organization satisfies WP:ORG. Celestina007 (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Ahrefs is a well-known SEO company in the industry. It's no less notable than SEMrush, SimilarWeb, or Yoast SEO. The SEO tools provided by Ahrefs alone should warrant enough notability to keep the page. See this, this recommendation in a list of best SEO tools, other mentions amongst the likes of Moz and Google Keyword Planner, a detailed review on PCMag, and this inclusion in an SEO market report. Greenminecraftdude — Greenminecraftdude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is no less notable than Yoast, Moz etc. Indeed. I've nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moz (marketing software) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO. All but one (that I already accounted for in the above analysis) of your links are to SEO vanity press. SEO space is much like crypto space. The only difference is that SEOs succeeded in getting on Wikipedia while cryptocurrencies still complain about not being able to spam Wikipedia. Possibly because SEOs specialise in manipulating their online footprint. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Imperva article (3) is a corporate site but it is 3rd party research that shows the amount of crawling that ahrefs does. I'm not saying that any SEO company deserves inclusion by default but the scope of crawling the web that they are doing is impressive among SEO vendors. I am biased as a customer but they have won our vendor selection process for multiple years in a row. --Themshow (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Ahrefs is a big fish in a small pond. Heavily self promoted by bloggers and affiliates of the company who often cross promote each other. However outside of this small circle it is not a noteworthy company and fails the requirements of WP:ORG simoncroftuk (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Author of the AfC here. I disclosed COI from the beginning and there was no one else involved during the creation process. There's no UPE as was raised here due to the Twitter thread of Ahrefs CMO if you read it through. Ahrefs also has no affiliate program so there's really no motivation for industry blogs and reviews to promote the product. There are indeed some sources that don't qualify as RS but I don't see a reason to disqualify industry-leading news sites or blogs. And lastly, you might want to consider the language used here by OP (e.g. circle jerking) that clearly indicates a bias against Ahrefs or SEO companies in general. Mpecan (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The UPE suspicion wasn't about you; I knew about your disclosed COI and that isn't the problem. The UPE concern was about the editor who accepted the draft, @TheImaCow:; who might want to comment here about his involvement and the notability of this subject. I actually noticed the tweet after I was already suspicious. Regarding "industry-leading sources", editors should look at the Wikipedia consensus on "crypto press" (sources that specialise in reporting on cryptocurrencies), which are quite quite like these SEO sources. They are notorious for puffery and nearly all are regarded as non-RS, including the "leading" ones like CoinDesk (RSN). And yes, I'm biased against SEO, which I think mostly amounts to spam; but that isn't relevant to the discussion. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpecan:, that TechRadar source is much better but still not enough to establish notability. It's also telling that when you search for "Ahrefs review", you get TechRadar only on the second page, and the only source on the first page with any semblance of reliability is PCMag (source (2)). Everything else for the first few pages is filled with SEOed crap from random third rate blogs. That is one of the reasons why I dislike SEO. Makes checking for notability of certain types of subjects much harder. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 23:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be real world notable, but this point in time the sources aren't there to justify the page. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ADMASQ, not always easy to spot until one gets ones eye in. A welter of poor sourcing. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent:, what makes you think it's a case of WP:ADMASQ? I'm curious because I don't think I'd do anything different if I wrote a page about any other company. Mpecan (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mpecan, I think experience on Wikipedia since around 2006, coupled with making mistakes and being fooled a few times. I've been wrong before, but not, I think, this time. I'm not sure how much you woudl like me to expand on the poor sourcing? That's been well done already Fiddle Faddle 19:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No surprise this made into wikipedia. definite promotional only, written by some professionals who knows how to trick wiki policies and make an article. similar to other non-notable tech startups. Light2021 (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run-of-the-mill SEO company. SEO is, by its nature, a business that is likely to corrupt and to be corrupted, especially when combined with paid editing. SEO and paid editing are two species of the same family of pests, Internet corruption. [Remainder of diatribe omitted]. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly popular if it concerns real world SEOs and webmasters but we should look for sources that are not any way related to this website when we are deciding notability. Subject fails GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth mentioning from my perspective. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.