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 but consider repurposing. Seems like there is a bit of confusion here about whether this should be considered an article about a company or an article about a product, and about which notability guideline to apply since the notability criteria are slightly different. Based on my reading of this discussion, there are several conclusions:

• Judged by WP:NCORP it seems like there is a delete consensus, as neither number of employees nor the popularity of the product are notability criteria; it's all about the sourcing and as noted none of it has been provided.
• On the product it seems like there is actually a consensus to keep, as none of the delete arguments has made the claim that it isn't notable and reasoned arguments have been proffered that it is. Now, the spamming/COI concerns could also be applied here; but neither undisclosed paid editing nor conflicts of interest do automatically require deletion of an otherwise notable topic.
• On whether the topic should be treated as an article on the product or on the company or as both, it seems like the article in its current state is primarily about the company and some editors have suggested that it be repurposed to be mainly about the product to resolve the notability concerns.

On balance, this is a "keep" as there is a consensus that in some form the article can be kept and there are no overriding reasons for removing it altogether, but also "but consider repurposing" as the arguments that the article is better off repurposed about the notable product are legitimate. I recommend a talk page discussion to go more in-depth about this aspect also because WP:NNC (i.e notability criteria dictate whether we cover a topic, not necessarily how we do so) potentially applies here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Yoast

Yoast (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

SEO firm which fails WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Likely WP:COI created for... SEO purposes. See https://yoast.com/all-about-googles-knowledge-panels/ Loksmythe ( talk) 19:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I use this, and know it's quite popular. I see more benefit in keeping than deleting. If this is a verified COI article, perhaps a COI tag and subsequent cleaning up would be more appropriate. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 21:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Likely paid-for spam. MER-C 09:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment I would agree that the firm is not notable, but the Plugin certainly is. Of course notability is not inherited, but I wonder if a restructuring of the entry to focus on the acclaimed plugin instead of the firm would then subject it to WP:WEBCRIT or WP:PRODUCT, which it would likely pass with ease. Not sure if that kind of thing happens at AfD, or if we would need to delete and start from scratch. Pegnawl ( talk) 16:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment I nominated the article about the owner three years ago. See here. I received a comment about the nomination on my talk page. See here. gidonb ( talk) 04:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - 100 employees, multiple reliable sources, notable product.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 07:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. If the article were about the plugin, I wouldn't have any grievances. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The article could use reworking for that regard, however I'm not whether a article about a related, yet less notable topic deserves deletion. Utopes ( talk) 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Since the focus of this article is about the company, the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP (therefore Delete) but the plug-in is well-known and would easily pass the criteria for notability. Since there's also a chance that an article on the plugin would occupy the same name, perhaps it is possible for an interested editor to rework the article so that the focus is the plug-in? HighKing ⁺⁺ 18:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  It can be about both since they have the same name. Dream Focus 14:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Response It can only have one main topic - either the company or the product. Right now, the topic is the company (and fails WP:NCORP). If the topic is changed so that the focus is the product (and of course if can still have a section on the company), then it would probably pass. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per WP:RS. Non-trivial coverage exists. Lightburst ( talk) 13:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Response Can you point to any two links for non-trivial coverage of the company that meets NCORP? HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems a popular enough plug-in. If Forbes and other reliable sources cover it, then it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 14:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Except the topic isn't about the plug-in .... although it could be. HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Just a note that it's not Forbes that covered this, but a blogger on Forbes/sites which is NOT the same as Forbes. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Are you sure that's not just a directory for someone who worked there? Don't they have proper editorial oversight? They don't just let anyone upload things. Was this person a paid employee? Dream Focus 12:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
      • In general, when the Forbes URL includes .../site/[contributorname]/, you should assume no editorial oversight and treat it like a blog. If you hover over the little "i" next to the author's name you'll see the notice "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." But on top of that, the article you're referring to (I believe) includes only two brief paragraphs about Yoast, not "substantial coverage," and therefore not applicable for meeting the criteria of WP:NCORP (which are the notability guidelines that should apply to this entry as written). Pegnawl ( talk) 16:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
        • That coverage is significant for a review, its context not wordcount that matters, and WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear that something must meet either the general notability guidelines, as this clearly does, or one of the subject specific guidelines, it doesn't have to meet both. That disclaimer means nothing since they do that with their paid editors, especially when there is a review. And most websites have it where you can click on the writer's name and see a link that has /contributor name/ in it, listing all the articles they have written for them. Forbes is a legitimate news source, they not letting just anyone upload whatever they want. Dream Focus 17:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
          • The Forbes 'sites' question has been covered at length over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard ( here's one example that really gets into it). There is no editorial oversight, therefore it's WP:SPS, and cannot be used to establish notability. Agreed that wordcount doesn't matter, but ... this particular article is mighty thin, miiiighty thin, and says nothing about the company itself, so ... I don't think any reasonable person would consider it "substantial coverage", even if it were reliable. Please ensure we're discussing the same article? Pegnawl ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
            • Agreed. I wasn't aware contributors were different than writing staff. But a reliable source [1] says over five million people use this, so that makes it notable enough for a Wikipedia article by reason of ignore all rules and basic common sense. Dream Focus 19:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Question I see the reasoning of some of the Keep !voters above not differentiating between the company (current topic of this article) and the plug-in of the same name by the company. So what are we actually !voting on here? Nobody has produced any references that meet the criteria for notability on the company. That said, I don't think there'll be much problem turning up links for the product. So is this really a !vote to delete or a !vote to amend/change so that the topic is the product? HighKing ⁺⁺ 16:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is an article about a company and its highly notable software product of the same name. There is absolutely nothing wrong about covering both in a single article, and the dogmatic objections above are based neither on policies nor guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Response Hi Cullen328, hardly a dogmatic objection or one that is supported by policy or guidelines. What the WP:NCORP guidelines say in the very first line is: This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • HighKing, nowhere does that guideline say that it is unacceptable for a single article to cover a company and its eponymous product. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Company with a sufficient size, popularity, and sourcing. Prodego ^talk 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep for reasons cited by User:Dream Focus and User:Jimbo Wales. Meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The subject is notable. That's why I did not AfD it along with the founder (see above). gidonb ( talk) 03:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete First off, lets be clear about what this AfD is about. The topic of this article is the company and therefore the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP states that "multiple" (at least two) references that support the notability of the company must exist. Despite the reasonable request above to produce any references that meet the criteria, not one has been produced. Also, the WP:NCORP guidelines say in the very first line is: This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. While the majority of editors above agree and have confirmed that the product is likely notably, that isn't the topic of this article. Therefore the reasons to Delete (which have not been dealt with by the Keep !voters are largely two-fold - that there are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP and that NCORP explicitly states that the article should be dedicated solely to either the organization or the product. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Your repeated rhetorical insistence and italicization may indicate sincerity (I WP:AGF) but it is still only your opinion. Many others disagree. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• True to form, here comes the Rescue Article trolls to harass people who disagree... HighKing ⁺⁺ 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• True to form, here comes HighKing to personally attack and to harass people who disagree with HighKing. You have a long record, which speaks for itself. AFD's are his personal space, donchaknow? 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 19:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You are not reading the guideline correctly, HighKing. The section on churches, for example, specifically allows combined articles, and does not limit combined articles to churches. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi Cullen328 - your interpretation of the section on churches ( WP:NCHURCH) is incorrect. It quite clearly only applies to churches and church buildings - especially seeing as it comes in a section labelled "Churches". It also clearly states that a combined article is justified *only* if *both* (congregation and building) are notable in their own right. It also doesn't say that an article where the topic is the congregation (which is *not* notable in its own right) is perfectly fine and allowable because their church building happens to be notable in its own right. The very first sentence of the NCORP guidelines couldn't be clearer, one would have to be obtuse to interpret it any differently that as it is written. HighKing ⁺⁺ 19:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You can call me obtuse all you want, HighKing, but there is nothing whatsoever in that sentence or in that guideline that forbids a combined article about a company and their flagship product of the same name. Deleting this article would remove encylopedic coverage of Yoast, and that would be the wrong outcome of this discussion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You've changed from arguing that the section on churches *specifically* *allows* combined articles to saying that there's nothing whatsoever that (specifically) *forbids" a combined article. Okay. I can agree with that. HighKing ⁺⁺ 22:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

That is because both assertions can be true at the same time, and both actually are true, HighKing. Glad to see you onboard. But seriously, keeping and improving this article is the best outcome for the encylopedia, and deleting it is the worst outcome. Pedantry and dogmatism are both counterproductive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Except not for the situation you're arguing for which is specifically excluded by the first line of the guidelines. And if its pedantry to point out what the guidelines actually say and to apply those guidelines to this situation, I'll take that. It isn't dogmatism to point out that your interpretation is not supported by the guidelines and goes against the purpose and spirit of the NCORP guidelines but it is obtuse to illogically cling onto a flawed argument and in my view, this is the real counterproductive behaviour. Most of the Delete !voters have clearly said that the topic (the company) fails the criteria of notability but the product (of the same name) would likely meet the criteria. Therefore the article will be improved by a delete/rewrite and at the same time, follow all our guidelines. HighKing ⁺⁺ 12:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, draftify, revise, re-publish. The entry is clearly about the company (for which I can't find a single piece of "significant coverage" in any RS), while the majority of the Reception sub-section is about the product. The entry should be refocused to concentrate primarily on the much acclaimed plugin and include a subsection for the company/founder. As currently written, this entry should not pass WP:N, on its own and especially through the lens of WP:NCORP. Pegnawl ( talk) 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Trusting in the ordinary process of editing and improving is vastly superior to deletion as an outcome, Pegnawl. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Usually I would agree wholeheartedly, but what's required here is not in the same vein as your typical "editing and improving". It's a total refocus that changes the categories, potentially the page name, and adjusts the language in every section. Had a single !keep voter acknowledged or entertained the restructuring recommendation I and others expressed three weeks ago, sure, I would have such faith. But that was not the case, !keep voters like the article as it presently exists, so (IMO) any such bold moves would be in poor taste until this conversation comes to a conclusion. Pegnawl ( talk) 13:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. An encyclopaedia does not have to list all 100-employee companies unless they are clearly above the threshold of notability for corporations. This one clearly fails the NCORP criteria. Yes, their product has a decent user base, but this AfD is about a company, not on their product (which would most likely fail any notability criteria anyway). — kashmīrī  ^TALK 09:48, 21 August 2019 (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.