Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoast SEO

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 keep. I think the outcome is now inevitable Spartaz Humbug! 11:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoast SEO[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Yoast SEO (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)

Non notable SEO company that makes WordPress plugins. All used sources are unreliable. Fails WP:NCORP. A previous AfD was closed as "keep but repurpose" but my understanding is that many !votes in that were not based on policies. A better AfD is needed. I'm ready to post an analysis of the sources, like I did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahrefs, if a keep !voter thinks my understanding is wrong and the current sources have merit. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Another ridiculous marketing company which knows how to make wiki article. :) No surprise this made into wikipedia. definite purpose is 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) 21:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on the previous AfD was that the company fails NCORP and the article should be repurposed to be about the product. My understanding is that the arguments for notability of the product were based on faulty assumptions such the product being covered in Forbes. Forbes has never actually covered Yoast. The Forbes links were actually to Forbes Contributers (forbes.com/site/ addresses) which is basically a blog hosting service. See the RSP listing just below WP:FORBES. Jimbo's !vote claims multiple reliable sources but as I've said before, reliable sources don't actually exist. As demonstrated in the Ahrefs AfD, SEOs use a number of techniques similar to Forbes Contributers to give an illusion of sources where non exist. All keep !votes were along the the lines of Jimbo's non existent "reliable sources" and Dream Focus' faulty Forbes argument. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 00:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, I was there; I voted delete and I complained about the Forbes/sites reference. Regardless, the previous AfD discussion should be visible to participants here, ideally in the top right where previous deletion discussions customarily reside. Pegnawl (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to manually insert the box. It is usually inserted automatically but looks like the title change threw it off. I hope I didn't break anything. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 08:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:MILL, WP:NCORP, and WP:RS. This just released its software two weeks ago. As I've written in another AFD, literally any Internet rando can get "certificated" in SEO on LinkedIn. The sourcing is terrible - social media, blogs, and its own website. I would go along with userfication, if someone wants to adopt this page. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you mean the date in the infobox, that's just the latest version; the plugin itself was released several years ago, as it says in the History section. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In a strictly non-Wikipedia sense, the plugin is quite notable (!) in that it's probably the most commonly used SEO plugin for Wordpress, with millions of installations. But I fully accept that, as it stands, the references in this article are rubbish, and nowhere near enough to establish notability; I'll see if I can find better ones. (Also, the article fails to distinguish between the plugin itself and the developers behind it.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't looked for RSs on this, but I also participated in the last AfD. The plugin is popular, and the company is big enough. I don't know how that translates into media coverage, but for me that seems sufficient to think someone may benefit from having a Wikipedia page about this. There's also Jimbo's vote on the last RfC too... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I tried looking for RS references, and it soon became clear we won't exactly find something hefty by The Guardian or WaPo. The closest thing to proper sources (as opposed to blogs, comparison sites, etc., not to mention the countless companies selling SEO services) that I could find are these; I'm listing them here rather than in the article, for now, in case anyone wants to comment on whether they're good enough: Irish Tech News / Social Media Today / Practical Ecommerce / Entrepreneur -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • All four of these seem to be SEO blackhattery in my opinion. If an article starts with a number (specially a number divisible by five), that's an immediate red flag. The other two start with "best"; another red flag. Only Entrepreneur (magazine) seems to have any kind of reputation; largely negative: it's mentioned in an NYT story for pushing pop-up advertisements that look like news articles. So, this Entrepreneur "article"'s title starts with "Best", it's a BuzzFeed style list, and the byline contains a generic "opinions expressed" statement below the byline. All this does not inspire confidence. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 11:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, fair enough, I suppose. That's the best I could come up with, though, so I reckon that's me done trying! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having said what I've said in my earlier comments, I'll register the lone keep vote, even if just for the record. The plugin (not the company behind it, necessarily — and yes, I do think the article should very clearly be about the product and not the company) is notable, outwith the Wikipedia meaning of the word at least, and IMO it would be a pity to delete this article just because we can't establish WP:GNG notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Wordpress for dummies book has a decent section on them specifically a manual by an independent source describing them goes to notability. PainProf (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's unanimity that the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, even from the lone opposition !vote. Ifnord (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed as delete but relisting following two reasonable requests on my talkpage.

Hello, I want to ask if you will consider backing out the closing of this AfD and relist? The article was a strong keep as (Yoast) in August 2919. User High King then gave the article a name change, and the original participants did not know that the article was up for deletion. In the Yoast AfD even JW !voted to keep. Keep - 100 employees, multiple reliable sources, notable product.--Jimbo Wales. I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of a bad close of the Yoast SEO AfD. I am just asking for a relist. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at the outcome as well; Yoast SEO is probably the gold-standard for that type of functionality on WordPress, itself the most widely-used CMS on the internet. At least one person favoring delete didn't realize that (thinking the product was two weeks old), and the comments in general didn't really engage with the topic. I realize that this doesn't translate into passing the GNG, but I would be shocked if sources didn't exist and the article deserves a better debate than what it got so far. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: pinging previous participants who haven't participated in this AfD: @MER-C, Jimbo Wales, Utopes, HighKing, Dream Focus, Ravensfire, Cullen328, Prodego, and Kashmiri:. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 05:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I advocating keeping the previous version in August 2019 and support keeping this article as well. I explained my reasoning in detail in several comments back then, and do not feel obligated to cut and paste those comments here. To summarize briefly, this very widely used software ought to have a neutral, verifiable article in a vast encyclopedia of well over six million articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sourcing is forthcoming. Above, people are talking about WP:GNG, but the notability guideline we should be discussing is WP:NCORP, per the first sentence of that guideline, and the first sentence at WP:ORGCRIT - this is a commercial product, NCORP applies. If we don't have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, we should delete this article. None of the sources currently in the article tick all the boxes. Looking through the sources mentioned in the comments above, I see entries in '10 great ways to...' type listicles, which fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and a piece by a non-staff contributor on Enterpreneur.com (such articles are specifically listed as failing WP:ORGIND), so they don't help. I am interested by PainProf's note about it being covered in depth by the book WordPress for Dummies - I don't have a copy of the book, but assuming it gives significant coverage I'd agree that goes one step of the way towards establishing notability. If anyone can put forward a couple of other sources of that sort of quality, I'd be happy to change my vote - but if the article is kept, it definitely needs a thorough reworking, it really does read like an advert. GirthSummit (blether) 08:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs improvement Andrew Davidson is correct - Google Books finds a number of 'how to' books, which appear to be independent of the subject and give it significant coverage - I'm satisfied that these could be used to write a decent article, so am changing my !vote as promised. The article needs attention for tone - a lot of the prose seems to be attempting to impress the reader with how many downloads it has had, how many sites it runs on, and how generally great it is. GirthSummit (blether) 10:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking through the books, it seems easy to find coverage such as "Yoast SEO is the granddaddy of all SEO plugins. With nearly 21 million downloads, it's easily the most widely used SEO plugin. We've discussed it throughout this book.";"One of the best is WordPress SEO by Yoast"; "This particular plugin is designed by WordPress SEO consultant/designer Joost de Valk (whose first name is pronounced “Yoast”). "; "If you're using Wordpress, we highly recommend the free Wordpress SEO plugin by Yoast.". Just needs improvement not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST;WP:IGNORINGATD; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seems to be some misunderstanding above as to what exactly this plugin is. Per my comment on Spartaz's talk page, it is literally one of the most widely-used plugins in the WordPress ecosystem and of long-standing. I really have to question whether some of the delete !voters even glanced at the article to dismiss it as something "released two weeks ago" or made by "Another ridiculous marketing company". Naturally, it's going to be more difficult than otherwise to write an article about an SEO product, but the product is legitimate and I have no doubt that there are reasonable sources available. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the same reasons I stated at the first Yoast articles for deletion discussion. Article and company did not become less notable in the interim. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, this seems like a notable plug-in but the article needs work, which most do. On balance I think it needs basic improvements not deletion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2020 our (UTC)
  • Leaning Delete for now - Probably doesn't need to be said (except it seems like it might) but a number of downloads, just like a number of youtube subscribers or twitter followers or position on the Steam sales chart, is not a great reason for keeping. Likewise the "on its merits" arguments about being important or well-known really needs to be backed up with sourcing. And for a topic about SEO, our standard needs to be pretty high. I'm concerned about relying on marketing/SEO how-to books and tech blogs for a marketing/SEO subject. The SEO community is famously self-promotional, shadily cross-promotional, and prolific. When I search for sources I see SEO publications, SEO how-to books, tech blogs, and wordpress how-to websites/books. I'm wary of building an article on how-to material in general, which takes book form but are often pumped out en masse without a great deal of quality control, aren't always independent, etc. Granted, a search for this subject is difficult because of the subject. Can someone point me to the few best sources you've found (no hand waves to a google books search please)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rhododendrites: I can't give you a source, but I can tell you that I work in an industry (not SEO) that uses this plugin and that it's widely used and well thought of. I realize how people react when they see "SEO" in the name and I would encourage you to overcome that gut reaction. I realize that asking you to take my word for it isn't very helpful. In general, I don't edit in this area so I can't speak to what kind of sourcing is available. Where I'm coming from is this: if our sourcing policy makes it difficult or impossible to write about a widely-used piece of technology, then that's an outcome I wouldn't expect and may be undesirable. Conversely, it's possible that WordPress plugins simply aren't notable, but I don't think that should be the case either. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, but we have these discussions not to say "it's widely used" or "it has lots of downloads" or "it's popular" but to see if that popularity translates to Wikipedia notability via the sourcing. Whether a plugin, app, game, extension, song, website, ad, or whatever, just having lots of downloads/views/listens/hits/subscribers doesn't always translate to notability. That's not a defect of our sourcing requirements. Changing sourcing requirements so we can use lower quality sources for well marketed subjects (or because "it's widely used" or "I know it's important") is putting the cart before the horse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:N I was a keep !vote at the first AfD. I did some more research this time and I find that the app is recommended as an essential plugin by nearly every list of essential WordPress apps. I also looked at books as AD has done, and I added a Blogging sub heading, a further reading, and external links section, and some references. I did add one blog, so you can tsk tsk me for that. I think the article belongs in our encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per 7&6=thirteen; the article did not become less notable since the last AfD. I understand why there may be some bias against SEO tools in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that some of our readers wouldn't benefit from such an article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP https://www.techrepublic.com/article/hed-the-best-wordpress-plugins-a-guide-for-businesses/ A reliable source put it on its top list, and mentioned that in 2018 it had "Active installations: 5+ million". And more recent how to books covering it, as Andrew found read: "With nearly 21 million downloads, it's easily the most widely used SEO plugin". We probably need to have a subject specific guideline for software that says its notable if millions of people use it, just as an album is notable if it sales above a certain amount. But if its that popular then "how to" books will cover it and notable sites will list it on their top software for this purpose lists. Dream Focus 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just highlighting that the first source to be linked in this influx of keep !votes is a tech blog listicle... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a blog, its a professional paid writer working for a legitimate news site. Dream Focus 16:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly passes GNG but the writing could be improved. Atsme Talk 📧 17:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is the wordpress plug-in, not the company. The last AfD determined that the company failed to meet the criteria, hence the article was refocussed to the software. There are sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product, meets WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - what are these compelling sources that people are now seeing that I do not see. Certainly the references currently in the article are pretty terrible:
  • Wordpress.org and yoast.com are not independent
  • Builtwith.com is just data
  • Yourmoneygeek.com's "How to Start a Blog in 10 Easy Steps" which mentions Yoast in a list.
  • Incomediary.com, wpbeginner, wordpress tavern, 1stwebdesigner, wpbeginner again ... seriously? Dime-a-dozen low quality blogs/listicles.
  • Techrepublic and Techradar are marginally better, but they're listicle entries with brief summary of the software.
  • a how-to book with a single paragraph in a list of plugins.
  • Couldn't tell you what clickz.com is because apparently my browser is set to filter it out ... typical of the highest quality sources, of course.
  • The only decent source is the bunch is de Gelderlander, but that says almost nothing about the plugin. As HighKing says just above, the topic is not the company. Still, it's better than the others.
  • What are the other sources people are seeing that makes this such a home-run? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, I think they are out there. Like PC Tech Magazine and Forbes calls Yoast the industry standard. i got sidetracked with other articles so will try to get back to this later. Lightburst (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not Forbes. It's the "Forbes Agency Council", where PR firms and advertising agencies can post to Forbes.com if they join the club. And is "PC Tech" a reliable source? I haven't seen it before, and a glowing feature-packed review in a not-so-popular tech website I've not heard of is at least cause for initial skepticism. Would be curious about editorial oversight, reputation for independence in reviews, native advertising, etc... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Forbes is Certainly not what it used to be. contributors, and this term Forbes Agency Council, was new to me. That one is just a passing mention anyway. Here is a PC World article. Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, I changed my vote after a Google Books search after finding things like this, this and this. They're by several different publishers (rather than self-published puff), you can buy print copies of them on Amazon (not free-to-download rubbish), and there were various others. I have access to none of them, so I can't really comment on their quality or the depth of coverage they give to this subject. It's not an area I'm very familiar with, I'd be interested to know more about your views on these. GirthSummit (blether) 11:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^Girth, I will check those out. As an aside...does anyone else think it is amusing that we cannot use any blog refs, for an article about an app which is most useful for bloggers, created by a guy who started with a blog. I understand why - but it is still amusing to me. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: It's the nature of SEO. You might think something like SEO would be extremely competitive. It might be that way at the ground level but at the SEO bloggers, agencies and gurus level, it's a massive circlejerk. They constantly promote not only themselves but each other, it benefits them because it gives an aura of professionalism to what is basically glorified spamming (the truly "white hat" stuff is something webmasters do to make the website more usable/crawlable). Anyone familiar with SEO might remember the "guest posting" stuff, where they would constantly quote, promote and link to each other to increase "backlinks". (See [1] recent Vice article for an explanation of this "symbiotic relationship" between SEOs). The massive promotion makes it look like they are notable, but when you scratch the surface just a little bit, you find out how much bullshit there is. In conclusion: never trust anything of an SEO related blog. It's a circlejerk. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, anything promotional sould be removed. However, with the sources indicated in this AfD, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 08:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sources? This avalanche of keep votes is based on run of the mill blackhattery from sites like Forbes Contributers and Tech Republic and some 2-3 pages worth of mentions in "how to" books about blogs. Tech blog posts are explicitly mentioned in WP:ORGCRIT as being unreliable. I have faith that the closer will look at the quality of the !votes instead of the number. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 09:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. The sourcing is crappy but this is an extremely widely used plugin (I used it myself because it was the highest rated plugin to do this job). I think in the end we have to keep it, but prune the fluff. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:04, 5 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/Yoast_SEO&oldid=971323974"