Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordPress Foundation


 * 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 merge to WordPress. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

WordPress Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I can find no significant independent coverage of the WordPress Foundation itself that is not just coverage of Wordpress, having searched ProQuest, Google Scholar, and the internet in general. As it does not meet WP:ORGCRITE independent of its flagship product, the page should be a redirect to Wordpress. signed,Rosguill talk 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology,  and Internet. signed,Rosguill talk 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because it is the organization behind the product that is used by 42.8% of the top 10 million websites.
 * News of topic: https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22977857/wordpress-tumblr-simplenote-internet-automattic-matt-mullenweg-interview, https://techcrunch.com/2010/09/09/wordpress-trademark/, https://wptavern.com/tag/wordpress-foundation and many blog posts. -- Avoinlähde (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * More sources: https://opensource.org/node/504, http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/WordPress-Foundation-launched-910845.html, https://torquemag.io/2013/01/wpf-automattic/ -- Avoinlähde (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The only one of those that has what I would consider significant coverage of the WordPress Foundation is the Torquemag article, which appears to be a semi-crowdsourced site with an unclear relationship to WordPress per its about page . Even if we were to assume that it is fully independent and reliable, we would need additional articles in other reliable and independent sources providing a similar depth of coverage to demonstrate notability. signed,Rosguill talk 16:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Torquemag is at most relationship to WP Engine, which has no affiliated to the WordPress Foundation (except, of course, they use WordPress-software, as do thousands of other companies). WP Engine is one of the many companies that offer hosting service. See here: https://wpengine.com/ -- Avoinlähde (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * More sources of discussion topic:
 * https://torquemag.io/2013/01/wpf-automattic/ (the source that you mentioned)
 * https://www.makeuseof.com/wordpresscom-vs-wordpressorg/
 * https://kinsta.com/learn/wordpress-history/
 * https://www.wpbeginner.com/beginners-guide/who-owns-wordpress-and-how-does-wordpress-make-money/
 * https://greyhawkdigital.com/automattic-gives-wordpress-trademark-to-wordpress-foundation/
 * https://mamchenkov.net/wordpress/2010/09/10/wordpress-trademark-moves-to-wordpress-foundation/
 * https://www.nexcess.net/blog/wordpress-org-the-wordpress-foundation-and-automattic-whats-the-difference/ Avoinlähde (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ...so a bunch of blogs without demonstrable reliability (except for maybe ), that all exclusively cover the Foundation in the context of Wordpress? I'm not seeing a compelling case for splitting. Content about the foundation should be included in a section of Wordpress based on what you've provided here. N.b. that as far as Torquemag is concerned, the semi-crowdsourced nature is as much, arguably more, of a concern for reliability than its connection to WP directly (see WP:UGC). signed,Rosguill talk 14:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per nomination. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Merge, I think it makes more sense to add it to the Wordpress article under it's own section based on Mebigrouxboy's comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The articles (WordPress and WordPress Foundation) deal with the topic from different angles (software and organization behind it) and it does not make sense to cover them in one article. Second, the discussion is about deleting the article, not redirecting it. -- Avoinlähde (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect 40 of % whatever whatever does not an article make. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you clarify? -- Avoinlähde (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to WordPress. MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to WordPress under a new section, WordPress Foundation. Information in the article is unique, but it is of course undeserving of being an article. However, the information does belong on a page. Therefore, new section. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to WordPress as per ATD.  HighKing++ 18:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.