Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search engine marketing

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. W.marsh 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Search Engine Marketing

Search Engine Marketing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Propose Deletion. This article is not Noteworthy. It is an overlapping topic. Same author wrote (Search Engine Land also not noteworthy) It is an overlapping (subset of Search Engine Optimazation). Search Engine Marketing belongs as a subtopic of Search Engine Optimazition, as it is currently written.

The article is poorly written, even after it was reverted. SEM is a subset of SEO work, as such, it belongs in the SEO article.

Any SEO company will do SEM work. It is a subset of the topic and should just have a redirect to that article. --Akc9000 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is false. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• merge SqueakBox 20:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Search engine optimization is concerned with free listings. Search engine marketing is primarily concerned with paid listings, according to current use. As the main contributor to search engine optimization , I am in a good position to know the difference. This article is horrible, but that's not a reason to delete. It needs editing and expansion. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• dunno the article is better for being shorter, but still lacks independent sorces; the word marketing is the world's most abused weasel word, and the article currently talks about search engine advertising. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, marketing isn't a weasel word. It has a very precise meaning. Please do read the article. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. SEO and SEM are not the same thing. Those of us who are in the Web 2.0 industry know this. Sorry to rain on your parade, but SEO firms absolutely do not do the same things as SEM firms. But, if you're not convinced, see: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. And that's not even cracking the surface. That's just after a very quick search. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Most of the information would be better in a section of search engine. Better yet, rename the article as "Search engine advertising". Agree with Guy's argument.W1k13rh3nry 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that "Search engine advertising" is not a term, and there are no reliable sources citing Search engine advertising. All articles are about Search engine marketing, as displayed above. Much of SEM does deal with advertising, but what SEM is not SEA. Hell, SEA doesn't even exist. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that Wikipedia doesn't make up new names for things. We use the names that other people assign, especially people like New York Times editors. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think search engine advertising would be more accurate. Whatever, why don't we merge it though? It's not worthy of its own article. W1k13rh3nry 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Aside from your own opinion, what evidence or argument can you present? The simple fact is that this thing is called Search engine marketing and I've presented rock solid evidence that it's a US$9 billion per year industry. On what basis can you possibly argue to delete this. My belief, at this point in time, is that this may be a bad faith nomination meant to troll and disrupt. If I attempted to delete the article on Uganda, which has a GDP of about US$8.7 billion, I suspect the result would be a speedy keep, and I'd get some kind of stern warning. Jehochman ^Talk 22:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently those seven sources I cited don't count? All of which are either from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No matter how many times you say you disagree, Jehochman, SEO first of all does not only deal with free listings and the optimization of a site. Here is an example of an SEO company, http://www.submitexpress.com/ have a look. All companies that do SEO work also do SEM making SEM a subset of SEO. You optimize a site so you can market it. You do not market a site that is not fit to be marketed. SEM needs to be mentioned but not how this article is written. It need to be a section on the SEO article only and not a section of its own. If this was a very comprehensive article I would say that it would / should be its own article but not currently. As it is written, it is more like a footnote for the SEO article. Sorry, Search Engine Advertising is not the proper term or nomenclature, the proper term is Search Engine Marketing, as I stated, this article needs to be deleted or merged with the SEO article. --Akc9000 02:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone actually do research before you say keep this article? You are citing references from 2005 ! http://www.dmnews.com/cms/dm-news/search-marketing/34955.html for example. Do you think the information from 2005 is correct today? Do you read these things or do you just post them as cites to try to prove your point? Just because it is written, does not make the author correct. He tries to say that SEM picks landing pages and SEO does not. What a bunch of rubbish. I can do SEO on a site and get the search engine to land on a page. It is called "doorway" or "gateway" pages. Also, in the same way you changed this articles intro to make it look like SEO is a part of SEM you should have done the reverse. All SEM must starts out as a part of SEO, its just common sense and if you did that and merged these to articles we would not be having this discussion.

This is a very, very poor argument and a further testament to your misunderstanding of the industry. A citation that is two years old does not mean that it has become irrelevant or any less fact today than it was two years ago. Quit being a troll!! Jasonmurphy 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore look at PPC for example, just one year ago you bid to a position. This is no longer true, you still pay-per-click but the actual position is based on a number of factors, 1 is the amount you are willing to pay per click and 2, is the quality of the ad. The quality of the ad is SEO not SEM therefore SEM is a part of SEO. Do any of you have PPC accounts and do SEO/SEM work? --Akc9000 03:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• merge I will compromise with a vote to merge instead of delete. I never said that SEO and SEM are the same thing rockstar. I said that SEM as the article is written, is a subset of SEO and as such, needs to be deleted or merged with the SEO article. When the article is developed properly it could be later split but not as it is now. It does not have to remain as a seperate article that needs house keeping as it is, it is a subset of SEO. If this article was written from a different point of view, we would not be having this discussion. --Akc9000 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to merge this into it's parent article, Internet marketing, until we have time to expand it into a proper, separate article. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Internet marketing would be more appropriate than merging with SEO, though it will become its own article once I find some time to properly reference it. And for the record, I do work both with SEM and SEO, and trust me, they're not the same thing. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite right; they are not. Even those of us who do both services entirely in-house as "just another part of the process" are aware of the distinction. Adrian M. H. 17:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Bill Slawski's expansion is sufficiently detailed that there is no longer any reason to merge this. We just need to keep working on it and add more references. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Yeah, it's a poorly written article. However, Search Engine Marketing is an important overaching concept that encompasses many different elements (SEO, PPC , etc.) all of which are represented on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryzbilla (talk • contribs)
• Strong Keep - You have it completely backwards, Akc9000, and show very little understanding of the subject matter at hand. If anything, SEO should be a subset of SEM. There are firms that practice only SEO and label themselves as SEO firm. If you went to them for SEM, they'd refer you to a SEM firm. --Jasonmurphy 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• While I'm not clear on the distinctions, if there are articles on search engine optimization and Internet marketing, under no circumstances would deletion be an acceptable outcome. Merging is a possibility, but we should defer to the subject matter experts on editorial questions like that. If the topics are clearly separable, as some of the experts seem to be saying, I encourage them to improve the entry so that will be more clear. --Michael Snow 18:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Note to closing admin: This discussion was mentioned in an article at Search Engine Land. [8]. Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's just another example of people trying to delete something they don't understand or haven't heard of. But that's why Wikipedia exists, and why these articles especially exist -- education. It's pretty short-sighted to propose deletion. Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not upset by this in the least. This exposes an opportunity for the industry to do a better job educating the public. The ones who really missed the boat are SEMPO. Where are they? Why aren't they commenting? Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge SEO and SEM overlap quite a bit -- the distinction may be more about philosophy than actions. SEO is more about organic results, where SEM includes (focuses on?) paid placements and other external links. Ideally, they'd both belong to some larger discussion of search engines in general. JeffJonez 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of opinion. To me, as someone who practices both industries, the two are as different as magazines and books. Sure the printing press is required for both, but the motivation, funding/costs, editorial process, production timelines, content, revenue streams, delivery logistics and release schedules vary widely. Both SEO and SEM involve search engines, but there are two many distinct differences beyond that to brush it off as a matter of philosophy. The actions involved vary a great deal. Jasonmurphy 21:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• comment Note to admin: I have reason to believe the article was submitted for deletion out of personal spite and unresolved disagreement between the original article author and the nominating user. A review of the history of both users would suggest such differences. Jasonmurphy 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - The article itself is not noteworthy, but the subject matter of the article is, as a multibillion dollar industry, and the correct term of art for the topic it describes. It should be improved, and not deleted. (didn't sign. Sorry) Bill Slawski 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Reprehensible but still noteworthy non the less, no need to merge either. RFerreira 06:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and tell the jerk who flagged the article and states that search engine marketing is part of search engine optimization to get his facts straight [9]. This is no joke. The guy would be right, if it would still be pre 1997. 10 Years too late mate. What's next? Army merge into Guerillas? America merge into USA? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

comment. Some use the term SEM or Search Engine Marketing for Pay per click advertising, which will probably be understood in the right context. Some also prefer Search Marketing over Search "Engine" Marketing. There are valid arguments for that. As Bill Slawski already stated, Search Engine Marketing is used today as term for a broader industry, which continues to broaden. Things like Social Media Optimization emerged less than 2 years ago, Pay per click 10 years ago, SEO since over 14 years (with different names used for it at the beginning) and before that inclusion into directories. ODP is the only notable left that is free, the rest are fee based, hence the name "paid inclusion", which was extended to incorporate also the payment of a fee to ensure that crawler based search engines include paid for pages in their index. Who knows, but local search and mobile search will probably become so big to be noteworthy on their own merits as part of SEM.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

2nd comment. While it was possible in the past for one company to offer all kind of search engine marketing services, did the landscape became much more complicated and competitive over time. The trend of the industry is towards specialization on one aspect of search engine marketing. Even within the indivdual sub sections of SEM, such as SEO, is a trend to even further specialization within a sub section noticable. It is not as comon anymore that one company offers pay per click advertising services in addition to SEO services, even SEO shops do not necessarily offer all kind of SEO services anymore (in depth), but specialize in one or two aspects of it instead, such as Link building and viral marketing (linkbaiting) etc. These trends will continue, because search is going to become a larger market within the next few years and at the same time also much more competitive. The complexity of the new market if much too great for an individual to handle and deliver quaality results in all areas. The size of the companies in this space is still relatively small. Large companies that will be able to provide the whole spectrum of services across search marketing and beyond might emerge, if massive consolidation in the space will take place. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 23:25, 10 June 2007 (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.