Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joost de Valk (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Arguments have ranged from deleting to keeping and improving, and everything in between. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joost de Valk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Joost de Valk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator refuses a redirect, and it's not a G4 because it's padded out with additional PR. This person is notable for exactly one thing: his Yoast SEO plugin for WordPress. All the sources are in that context. WP:BLP1E appliues, but a redirect to Yoast SEO is the obvious solution IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable individual who is an expert in his field, easily passes WP:ANYBIO#2 This particular de Valk article was started from scratch and has nothing to do with the first article or AfD (which looks to have been a pretty solid delete). Business Insider has a biography of de Valk. In PCWorld magazine (not yet in the article), he is an expert finding vulnerabilities in software. WP:BLP1E does not apply because the subject is an expert, widely acclaimed, meeting WP:ANYBIO, and the subject has had significant roles with two companies (Yoast as CEO and WordPress as WordPress Marketing and Communications Lead role) He has made a major impact in the field of computing, app development, optimization and software. We have the room for such an article WP:NOTPAPER, it serves our readers. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a great article and notable per WP:AUTHOR point 1-3.--Greg Henderson (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, this isn't an author (or creative individual). Plain assertions that someone passes WP:AUTHOR 1-3 are meaningless unless you actually say how (and none of them apply here anyway). Plus, "... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant WP:CREATIVE as in point 2: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." There is a seconday source here Ultimate Guide to Link Building that says: "Joost De Valk is a well-known specialist in the fields of SEO and WordPress...he built a plugin for WordPress with 3.5 million downloads."--Greg Henderson (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP1E doesn't apply because this isn't a low-profile individual, as evidenced by the interview in Business Insider and various other PR-pushing. However, speaking of that interview, it's an interview and not a biography, as claimed immediately above. It therefore does nothing to establish notability, and is not independent of de Valk. Also doing nothing to establish notability is the entry in the Clickz listicle of SEO experts. A quick glance at the site shows that they accept payment to publish stories. Likewise, the PC World source is nothing in-depth; it merely mentions his role in looking for security vulnerabilities in Wordpress plugins that also affected his own product. The vulnerability itself was found by a third party. Calling him an "expert" is extremely questionable, and simply having expertise doesn't make someone notable. What ultimately matters is being able to write an article about someone because they've been written about in-depth by multiple, independent sources, and that just doesn't seem to be the case here. Take away the PR stuff, and there's nothing left. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ward, Eric; French, Garrett (April 5, 2013). Ultimate Guide to Link Building: How to Build Backlinks, Authority and Credibility for Your Website, and Increase Click Traffic and Search Ranking (Paperback). Irvine, California: McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated. p. 179. ISBN 1599184427. ISBN 9781599184425. Meets WP:GNG. Recognized expert. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This little mini-bio of de Valk is in the source because de Valk himself contributed a couple of pages to this compilation. The book making glowing statements about one of its own contributors is thus not independent of the source, and so this does nothing to offer recognition. In any case, simply having the expertise and position to contribute a couple of pages to a magazine's published special volume does nothing to establish GNG. Even being a recognized expert isn't enough on its own; it merely indicates likelihood of notability, because recognized experts will often have been written about. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Published by McGraw-Hill. But I knew that wouldn't matter ... 18:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • KEEP I agree WP:CREATIVE point 2 is clearly met. I also wonder how many reliable sources in other languages Google news actually scans for. The Business Insider coverage helps meet the general notability guideline. Dream Focus 19:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't shout your !vote in all caps, thanks. Creative #2 isn't met for the simple fact that the subject isn't a creative individual (in the Wikipedia sense). Notability is being claimed in regards to his position as CEO and his development of a piece of software. (Even if it did apply, that doesn't translate to automatic notability). That's not even remotely what WP:CREATIVE is about. Moreover, as I already mentioned, the Business Insider piece is only an interview with no secondary analysis or commentary by the interviewer. This offers no weight in establishing notability. Musing about existence of sources in other languages is all well and good, but unless you find any, it won't help us here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Capital letters make it easier for me to read. Its not shouting, you just imagine things. Anyway, interviews do count towards notability, the person notable enough for them to interview and write about. They just can't be trusted for variability since they are a primary source. And creative doesn't discriminate against a piece of software as a creative work. Dream Focus 20:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Ultimate Guide to Link Building looks solid. It wasn't written by him and it has a reputable publisher. Combined with Business Insider and PC Magazine, I feel that it could be said that we have WP: THREE. Eliteplus (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This person surely at least fulfils WP:bare with the half-dozen secondary sources that I currently see in the article. It appears he has had a notable influence in his field. Merger with Yoast SEO is another option, but not delete.Patiodweller (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yoast SEO. The sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability independent of his product. Analysis below:
Source analysis by Spicy
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
PC World Yes Yes No No substantial biographical coverage, just a mention that he discovered a code vulnerability ✘ No
Yoast.com No Company's own website ? Only for basic uncontroversial claims Yes ✘ No
Business Insider No Softball interview. Not considered to be an independent source, as it's just the subject talking about themselves ? No consensus on the reliability of Business Insider at WP:RSP Yes ✘ No
PC Tech Mag Yes ? Unclear No Does not mention Joost de Valk at all, only his product ✘ No
Ultimate Guide to Link Building ? Introductory material to content written by Joost de Valk. Unclear if this was written by an independent editor or by Joost himself. Yes Book from reputable publisher Yes A couple paragraphs about him ? Unknown
Income Diary No Another softball promo interview ? Unclear Yes ✘ No
1st Web Designer No Another softball promo interview No Appears to be a blog without any sort of editorial policy Yes ✘ No
ClickZ ? Unclear, the site offers native advertising services and these sorts of listings are often paid for No SEO blog, no editorial policy No Just a couple sentences about him plus a quote ✘ No
BuiltWith Yes Yes Not familiar with this site but I'll assume it's reliable for plugin usage statistics No Just a statistics database, does not mention Joost at all ✘ No
WPTavern (1) No Coverage is just Joost talking about his company, not really independent for the same reason that interviews aren't No Blog, no editorial policy No Entirety of coverage is "Joost de Valk, founder of Yoast.com, says the company is focusing on its core offerings surrounding SEO and that the plugin no longer fits into its roadmap" plus a quote by him ✘ No
Gelderlander Yes Yes No Article is about Yoast, Joost only mentioned in passing ✘ No
WPBeginner ? No SEO blog No Does not mention Joost ✘ No
Emerce (1) No Article is based on Joost talking about himself ? Unclear No WP:ROUTINE corporate coverage ✘ No
WordPress Search Engine Optimization Yes Yes No Does not mention Joost ✘ No
Emerce (2) Yes ? No Article is about the new CEO, Joost only mentioned in passing ✘ No
WPTavern (2) No Article based entirely on statements from Joost No SEO blog No WP:ROUTINE corporate coverage ✘ No
David Henzel No Clearly an obnoxious promo puff piece - "The Yoast team is absolutely amazing in fostering friendly company culture. Here are some of the great practices they have adopted in their company to make their employees achieve work-life balance and feel appreciated." No Personal blog of a marketer Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
In short, the only source that might demonstrate notability here is The Ultimate Guide to Link Building and we need more than one good source to write a BLP. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from creating a notable piece of software in the absence of independent reliable sources about the man himself. And as creating Yoast is the only thing he is known for, it would be reasonable to merge to Yoast even if there were more coverage available, per WP:NOPAGE. Effectively all of the information in this article could be covered in the history section of the Yoast article, where it would benefit from additional context. Spicy (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you made a large chart for a strawman argument. Why not just comment on sources some stated proved notability instead of wasting time with every single one listed in the article? Also WP:INTERVIEW is just an essay, any random person can toss one up, it is not a guideline or policy. Even it says: An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability. They asked questions about the person's business and whatnot, it not just a "softball interview". Dream Focus 23:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Yoast SEO - per the above source analysis table, the subject does not meet NBIO/GNG. Business Insider is yellow at RSP; Clickz is, in the most obvious way possible, not a reliable source; a book that he partially wrote or contributed to cannot establish his notability. Per the above table, the actual RSes are brief mentions in articles about SEO; the rest are not RSes. (In fact, they shouldn't even be in the article at all, but if anyone goes and deletes them now, they will be accused of "evisceration", of course). I don't see WP:THREE, so it should be a redirect of the founder's name to the product/company. Lev!vich 02:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per sourcing identified, meets GNG. I find the sourcing matrix utterly unconvincing although perhaps well intended. I think readers are better served by a full bio on this creator rather than a few sentences in his app article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing doesn't impress me. A lot of it seems COI. The four sources that name him are [1] a WP:INTERVIEW in a niche outlet, another identical low visibility interview in [2], then [3], a short report that reads like a rewritten press release, and a bit longer version of the same in [4]. Business as usual, vanity as usual. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's something: [5]. Joost de Valk was accused of objectifying women. Can this be added to the article? Perhaps no, since this is a serious BLP claim and it looks like no reliable sources covered it. Maybe because the truth is, Joost isn't notable. All the sources that cover it are insider SEO press that can only be considered of value by ARS members and perhaps only when they want to "save" an article from deletion. If this information about #YoastCon can't be added to article because sourcing is weak, the article shouldn't exist because all sources in the article are like that. PS: Am I the only one who pronounced his name as written? The correct pronunciation of Joost is "Yoast" and that's why the name of the company. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was made live on July 4, 2020 and nominated for deletion June 5, 2020. Honestly, I had hoped to have more time to let the article breath - Many times the start of an article is not all that is available and fleshing out articles in non-English media outlets is somewhat more difficult. I did some work today, looking for sources. I did not include all of the various announcements where de Valk was the keynote speaker at conferences. I have to look at another article now.
    I do not think any of the items below are in the article yet.
    He is referred to as an expert by these outlets. Meeting WP:CREATIVE#2 and to a lesser degree #1
    The Guardian hired SEO Expert Joost De Valk to move their domain name. In 2014 Torgue Magazine quotes de Valk in their article about Microsoft. In 2017 The Guardian also called on de Valk as an expert in this article about Google. In 2016 Business Insider quoted de Valk in a news article about a new Google algorithm.
    These other pieces are much less worthy but I present them here as things I came across researching. In 2010 this is Kind of a bloggy looking site - State of Digital. I am posting it here because 2010 was the year he started Yoast. In 2011 the same website covers de Valk in an article about search. He is also interviewed here (english translation) in a 2014 Yellow Walnut piece. (a bit bloggy also) And finally, in 2018 his hometown newspaper Wijchen News Netherlands published a short story quoting de Valk about sponsoring a free day of ice skating. I can keep looking if the clock does not run out. Lightburst (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't create a BLP in mainspace first and then find reliable sourcing later. BLPs should be developed in draft space or user space not mainspace. Lev!vich 02:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. I first make sure the subject is notable, and this one was started WP:IMPERFECT but like you I think creating stubs is not a great practice, so I flesh it out, and hope for time to research more, and collaborate. Lightburst (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CREATIVE doesn't even remotely apply, and continuing to insist that it does is bordering on tendentious editing. Moreover, simply being an expert in something doesn't make someone notable (in the WP sense). Again, none of these sources establish notability. This is just throwing a plate of spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks. The ice skating thing? really? A thousand trivial mentions don't add up to one in-depth piece. Interviews (especially by iffy sources) don't help to establish notability unless the interview is accompanied by independent commentary from the interviewer. All this is compounded by the fact that it's clear that there's been a significant amount of PR behind this. In that case, we need an extra critical eye. WP:Wikipedia is not a PR mouthpiece. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Deacon Vorbis. I don't see evidence of significant biographical coverage. BLP1E as eloquently argued doesn't apply as he pushes his profile. But more importantly there is no notable event for it to apply to. He can't inherit notability from the company. All that is needed is in the article for the product/company say he was founder. Easy. PainProf (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think WP:BLP1E applies since it's more in the context of an event. Also, the three criteria listed there aren't all met, particularly the 3rd one. Hmanburg (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2020
  • Keep per Greg Henderson and possibly also per WP:ANYBIO. Spicy's source analysis shows that some of the citations will need to be trimmed later, but there's still enough to prove that he is a well-known developer. Behindthekeys (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect I agree with the posters above, there are quite a few sources, but really they look pretty dubious.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect and salt although a few details and references can be merged as Yoast SEO is such a personal and even family project. There is no need to split this content over multiple articles. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CREATIVE#1 an #2 are met. Sources show this person is an expert. I disagree with the above premise that one of most notable products ever made for WordPress is a "family project". The product is notable and international on it's own, and de Valk is notable on his own as an expert in his field. Wm335td (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Family project in the sense that Joost (pronounced in Dutch as Yoast!) is the CPO, his wife the CEO, and his brother the CXO. Of course you are welcome to disagree. Disagreeing with facts is fashionable. In the past I have supported keeping Yoast SEO. Its officers can be listed there. There is absolutely no need to spread Yoast SEO, product of a small family-run company, all over Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A little historic perspective. A previous version of this article was removed in 2016. I nominated it, so I should know. Its main author was later banned from editing because of promotional writing (example). Yoast SEO carries the following warnings: "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement" and "This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources." Both articles are just "starts". Merging some content makes sense. Being suckers of a small SEO business and its principal less. No wiki but us carries this person or his plugin business. We carry both! Nlwiki, not known for quality,[6] got rid of it right away. I'm a preservationist with many receipts. Saved many articles on WP. But let's all stay reasonable. This one does not meet the WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and its content can be better put to use elsewhere. gidonb (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, sources are bad - in passing, press releases and their rewrites... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quality of sources is middling but they are numerous and meet in-depth requirements: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] ~Kvng (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? This is pure refspam. One of your links is to a article that starts with "37 SEO experts" on a website called Clickz. None of these can be considered reliable. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 09:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • TryKid, I've listed 9. You've knocked at 1. I've acknowledged that the sources are not great but I think there's enough available to write a compentent article and that (not SEO any battle) is the root of our notability requirement. ~Kvng (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's how refbomb works I would say. Many low quality sources used at once, you simply can't comment on all of them. If you knock one out, there are ten more. Here I see WPTavern, an industry insider blog type site (kinda like how Coinbase isn't considered a reliable source for cryptocurrencies, I don't think WPTavern can be used to establish notability). There's Income Dairy (link 7 and 10 are exactly the same) which is a very short interview and not independent. The Business Insider Dutch edition is the best source in there but it's mostly an interview too. There's another industry blog type site (1stwebdesigner) and it's a interview too. All in all, all of them look promotional and can't really be used to write a good article on Joost de Valk. Regards, TryKid [dubious – [User talk:TryKid|discuss]]] 08:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          TryKid, thank you for your assessment. I believe my keep vote is still supported by at least two of the sources I've listed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (no objections to delete and redirect) given the source analysis by Spicy, which Kvng's 10 sources don't really help with countering, and the analysis by gidonb. I have never seen a software developer be considered eligible for NCREATIVE. The idea of software programming as a creative endeavor is interesting on an intellectual level and I might even support an RfC on the idea of adding it to that SNG. But without explicit community consensus I think we're bending past the point of breaking the intent and wording of the SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 30 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joost_de_Valk_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=975772389"