Deletion of Yoast

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Hi {{u|Cullen328}}, hardly a dogmatic objection or one that is supported by policy or guidelines. What the  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: 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 , on its own and especially through the lens of CORP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NCORP)

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  or , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEBCRIT||WP:PRODUCT)

Comment: 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  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  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  and that NCORP explicitly states that the article should be dedicated solely to either the organization or the product
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:NCORP||WP:NCORP)

Comment: per nom. Likely |paid-for spam
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:UPE)

Comment: The subject is |notable. That's why I did not AfD it along with the founder (see above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)