Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Joost de Valk (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:21, 5 August 2020 editDevokewater (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,948 edits →Joost de Valk: Reply Joost de Valk← Previous edit Revision as of 21:49, 5 August 2020 edit undoPatiodweller (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,048 edits KEEPNext edit →
Line 25: Line 25:
*::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. ] 20:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC) *::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. ] 20:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''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 ]. ] (]) 20:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC) *'''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 ]. ] (]) 20:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''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.] (]) 21:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:49, 5 August 2020

Joost de Valk

AfDs for this article:

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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • Keep this is a great article and notable per WP:AUTHOR point 1-3.--Greg Henderson (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Categories: