Deletion of SEOmoz.org

Comment: All it really takes to establish  is basically two good articles of, say, 1000 words apiece, actually ''about'' the subject in eliable sources by authors having |no connection to the subject offering more than routine coverage of the subject's press releases.  I haven't seen those articles.  All I've seen so far is a lot of vague  arguments that with all those hits, the coverage must be out there someplace, plus some needless insults and bullying.  That's not good enough.  I've tried chasing down those claims and I can't find the substance.  If there's really that much coverage, it shouldn't be that hard to identify two good articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:R||WP:INDY||WP:GOOGLEHITS)

Comment: I investigated invesp.com. It cleary apears to be SEO insider page and it lists links for a lot of spammy websites.  I see some interdependence between SEO websites and mutual promotion. It certainly doesn't appear to meet the burden of substantial, independent, credible and secondary 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The large amount of prominent coverage at Google Books alone is sufficient to meet  and exceed the trivial coverage outlined in . Several books on Search engine optimization repeatedly mention SEOmoz.org and discuss it in depth.http://books.google.com/books?id=osAaZHcEbtkC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=%22SEOmoz.org%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=1opiES8r_6&sig=3xwABUWkhmav8Jv83ChiH0poiN0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wXtsUJ_JGqz8iQKZrYGoDg&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22SEOmoz.org%22%20-wikipedia&f=falsehttp://books.google.com/books?id=7Cjb0zZjdYEC&pg=PT63&lpg=PT63&dq=%22SEOmoz.org%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=KsfZfpZikS&sig=8cMNObdvFb5YF1VyZ3CWCGGdlvA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wXtsUJ_JGqz8iQKZrYGoDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQhttp://books.google.com/books?id=Pnv_6UJ_KKMC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=%22SEOmoz.org%22+-wikipedia&source=bl&ots=54AFs3rXnA&sig=7mvN2fuckDLLsWbwJ_55M3I04pc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wXtsUJ_JGqz8iQKZrYGoDg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22SEOmoz.org%22%20-wikipedia&f=false etc. SEOmoz.org is frequently cited as an authority in mainstream news articles about SEO (''Hotwiring Your Search Engine; Google a Topic, and the Results Are Based on Popularity, Right? Wrong. Inside the Shadowy World of {{'}}SEOs{{'}}.'' Stone, Brad. Newsweek, December 19, 2005. ''Net Investment; Your Money'' Sunday Mirror (London, England), February 26, 2012. ''Web site search engine optimization: a case study of Fragfornet'' Gandour, Aurélie; Regolini, Amanda. Library Hi Tech News28. 6 (2011): 6-13. ''The Goodness in the Evil of SEO'' Rushton, ErinView Profile; Funke, Susan. Searcher19. 9 (Nov 2011): 30-35.) There's definitely a lot of chaff out there: large numbers of press releases and lightly paraphrased press releases mention this company, especially in the semi-legitimate marketing news media. Nonetheless, it is clearly one of the most notable companies in its field and is treated as such in reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: What are some reliable secondary source that covers this company in depth and in line with whats described at ? I had trouble as did
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by .  Sources offered are all either , trivial or mere blogs.  Wikipedia is not for , which clearly is what their whole business is about, making themselves and their customers ''appear'' more important than they are
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARY||WP:PROMOTION)