Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yardi Systems


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  17:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yardi Systems

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a borderline-G11 puff piece not based on reliable secondary sources. None of the secondary sources given in the article cover Yardi in any detail. When I prodded the article, Toddst1 de-prodded it without improvement but said that this Google Books search establishes notability. I disagree. Many of those hits are Yardi ads in old magazines that Google has faithfully digitized. The three "for dummies" books were written by the same author who mostly engages in vague praise and advertises his use of Yardi on his professional website. None of that is particularly helpful for writing a neutral, well-referenced article. Huon (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a major software company, but focused on real estate management, not some popular consumer game or whatever, so you haven't heard of it.  The article mentions 5,000 employees, one indicator of size.  I don't know what that corresponds to in financial terms, say 100k each => a 5 billion dollar company? -- do  ncr  am  05:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: The company is clearly notable ranking high in the Forbes Cloud 100 list. Yardi Matrix is widely cited as a major source of industry activity. Google Scholar shows dozens of results too, mostly in the Journal of Property Management from the Institute of Real Estate Management, which is what you would expect. Toddst1 (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wide citations are irrelevant. Going through the first page of those search results, I see three press releases and seven passing mentions a la "according to Yardi Matrix". How would that indicate notability? You haven't added any of those sources to the article in your cleanup efforts, likely because none of them provide useful information about Yardi. We need coverage of Yardi, not Yardi being cited in an article about something else. Regarding the estimate of revenues, firstly, 100,000 times 5,000 is 500 million, not 5 billion. Secondly, 606 of those employees are in Santa Barbara with the majority overseas, for example in India. Does your 100k estimate hold for all equally? Thirdly, we'll need independent sources for claims of grandeur, not our own conclusions based on rehashed press releases. If the company is all that big, someone other than the local business paper will have reported on it in some detail. That would indicate notability. Huon (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for math error, but a $500 million per year company is huge and is going to be notable, and even a $60 million per year company is big (suppose it is 600 employees x 100k each; you go ahead and start one if it is so easy :) ).  Surely the article could exist as a list of Yardi products alone;  the multiple sources available refer to their various systems and the Yardi Matrix etc.  What is meant by "wide citations"?  If you intended to say that being widely cited is not relevant, then I do not agree. -- do  ncr  am  22:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the parts of WP:CORP or WP:GNG where a company is deemed notable if it's widely cited, or if it has revenues of $X million. Those citations by their very nature only mention Yardi in passing and thus do not constitute the significant coverage we need to establish that Yardi meets the notability criteria. Huon (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Waiting- Good point, sources using a company is not the same thing as those sources covering the company. However, if it's use as widespread as the citations suggest, I imagine there should be sources discussing the Yardi directly. These are what is needed. (With-holding judgement to see if better sources can be found) Dbsseven (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I too held off to see if any of the Keep !voters produced more references. They haven't. This article fails GNG and WP:NCORP as per the arguments put forward by Huon. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a substitute for a company paying for advertising which is what this article looks like. -- HighKing ++ 17:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per 's comments. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete besides name checking with Forbes, there's no significant coverage of this company to pass WP:CORP. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2017 (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.