DevSecOps (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

DevSecOps is a very significant thing now, with 1500 Linkedin job listings for the field, 46 matches on Amazon, and 800,000 Google matches. Kermit2 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep protected in mainspace, allow draft. It's probably a notable concept, but given the history of the article, starting fresh in draft space might be the way to go (and DRV approval isn't required for that). The criteria cited in the nom (job listings, amazon matches, ghits) are meaningless for our purposes. The most recently deleted version is pretty crappy; I'm not sure it's quite WP:G11 material, but it's certainly no great piece of writing. I wouldn't be terribly opposed to restoring it to draft, but WP:TNT might be a better plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually did make a draft but accidentally moved it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devsecops without the correct capitalization then realized I couldn't move it to DevSecOps. What sort of criteria of significance are not meaningless for our purposes? Kermit2 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, you should have mentioned that earlier :-) For the moment, I'm going to move this back to draft space, pending the outcome of this discussion. What's meaningless is how many LinkedIn job postings, or how many Amazon matches, or how many Google hits there are. Those are not how we determine notability. What we're looking for are reliable sources; none of those qualify. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I will vote with allow re-creation possibly from draft. When I look online there is plenty of material available to show GNG would apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It is likely notable and it's never been to AfD, the only deletions in the log are for G11 (advertising). If someone can come up with a neutrally worded draft I'd be happy for it to be moved to mainspace. I don't think Draft:DevSecOps gets that far, it basically consists of a definition of the subject which manages to emphasise how great it is. Hut 8.5 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain the salting on mainspace. The editor should continue working on the draft and should submit it for independent review to AfC. Currently I believe no reviewer will accept that draft as it is not clear how it's notable but it shows clear start of a promotional article even without looking at the deletion log which will only reinforce that view. Your examples of LinkedIn listings, Amazon and Google search results are nothing more than vindication of how all the previous G11 deletions were correct.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in draft and try to find additional references,. But in practice the relative importance of ac ompany within its line of business does amount to common sense importance, and even with our conventional artificial view of notability as dependent only of sources, we do take it into account in afd discussions. In practice, we are much more likely to find reason to delete the article of a minor firm, using the logic that in such a case the references could only be promotional. (Myself, I am firmly more and more of the opinion that it's time we recognized the way importance is determined in the real world and abandoned our artificial substitutes that may have made sense 10 years ago when we had not yet realized our own importance, and could adopt whatever rules we liked for our game here. . Like it or not, we're now in too responsible a position to continue that sort of artificiality. . ) DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Continue working on the draft and bring back here when it has been fleshed out and referenced fully. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mt Washington Fire Protection District (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Fram prod'd the page claiming it was not notable. When I deproded it noting it is autonotable as a taxing district and populated place just like a school district, they unilaterally deleted the article citing G12. They then threated me on my talkpage - which is not appreciated at all especially from an Admin. I know this is not a copyvio because I checked it with Earwig on approval, and later reworked portions of the page that were poorly written after removing the PROD. If there are still sections that are too close to the sources they can be easily reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 08:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "threaten" them, I said that I would start a section on their talk page about the repeated cases of copyright violations (and plagiarism) they accepted from AfC. Discussing concerns with an editor on their own talk page is not threatening them, and being an admin or not has nothing to do with this. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with this DRV. Fram (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the actual copyvio, an edit like this (your "reworked portions") does nothing to address copyvio, and older copyvios would still need to be deleted anyway, not accepted and then rewritten. Example sentences:

• Source[1]:

"In 1952 Roy Tinsley allowed the department to build its first 2-bay fire house on the Porter Street property. The labor and much of the material was donated. In 1970 the department became a tax district for the first time it could develop a long range plan for upgrading fire protection. "

• Accepted version:

"In 1952, Roy Tinsley allowed the department to build its first 2-bay fire house on Porter Street. Much of the material and labor was donated. In 1970, the department became a Tax District, and for the first time, the department could make a long-range plan for upgrading Fire Protection."

• Reworked version:

"In 1952, Roy Tinsley allowed the department to build its first 2-bay fire house on Porter Street. Much of the material and labor was donated. In 1970, the department became a Tax District, and for the first time, the organization could make a long-range plan for upgrading Fire Protection."

"I know this is not a copyvio because I checked it with Earwig on approval" should be grounds for instant dismissal as an AfC checker or new page reviewer. Fram (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, obvious copyright violation. Fish+Karate 11:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - clearly copyvio, the content would need to be fundamentally rewritten and then the history would need to be purged anyway. Fram's analysis shows why one cannot rely on Earwig's tool exclusively in detecting copyvio, the tool cannot prove a negative and is not designed to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Looking at the accepted version in the history, I see additional copyvios from http://www.mtwashingtonfire.com/history.html, in addition to the one cited above. The amount of copyvio seems so extensive, the work to purge the history outweighs the value of the article. There's wiggle room around WP:N, but WP:CV is a bright line. Questions about qualifications to review drafts belong in other fora. I have no opinion on the fundamental notability of the subject, so see no reason a new draft couldn't be started from scratch (i.e. WP:TNT). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- This was a copyvio, so it isn't coming back. No opinion about allowing re-creation, except to point out that there is no such thing as "autonotable". Reyk _YO! 17:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "History" section, which comprised most of the prose in the article, was a blatant copyvio of the source cited. There had been some attempts to rephrase it but they were very superficial and it was still a blatant copyvio. We could get rid of that section and leave the rest, which would leave the couple of sentences in the lead and a list of the district's command structure and equipment. That isn't much of an article but it isn't nothing either. Automated copyvio tools aren't infallible, as anybody who uses them should know, and the idea that fire departments are inherently notable strikes me as rather odd. Hut 8.5 21:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Earwig is that it only (AFAICT) compares the text to the sources in the article. I run Earwig, but I also pick a few passages that look suspicious and copy-paste them into a google search to see what that finds. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - The example of "reworked" material above is blatantly not acceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This was a copyright infringement from the first non-empty revision, still plainly infringing as of the last one, and contained no non-infringing content from other authors. Speedy deletion is the appropriate remedy. Rewording from the infringement, as opposed to writing an entirely new article from the sources, is not. Endorse.
  That said, it's unfair and misleading to hold up Legacypac's edit above as an inadequate attempt to fix the copyvio. It is inadequate, but it wasn't meant to be - the infringement hadn't been identified at that point, and his edit summary ("Trim out excess detail on equipment, clarify this is a District not a fire departmsnt of the town and other style changes") makes it clear that he was tweaking what he thought was free content. —Cryptic 04:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct I was unaware of any copyvio (which earwig did not find, nor did 2 or 3 other reviewers that had handled the draft) when I edited the page to address wording issues. Because I edited the content somewhat heavily the claim that it was copyvio raised doubt in my mind, given I had reworded it personally. Fram's attitude toward me around this draft did not give me confidence that they were correct that there was a copyvio and I could not compare the deleted page to anything, hence the filing. Thank-you to the other Admins for taking a look at this and confirming the new editor copied inappropriately. Fram's assertion above around my handling of copyvio is highly misleading and hostile. I CSD a lot of copyvio and no one should accuse me of being soft on it. Legacypac (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, you wrote " I know this is not a copyvio because I checked it with Earwig on approval, and later reworked portions of the page that were poorly written after removing the PROD. " The way you wrote that sentence is "I know it is not a copyvio because A and B", where B is "I later reworked portions of the page". So you claimed, while filing this DRV, that it was not a copyvio in part because you reworked portions of the page. It is obvious that your reworking of the page had no influence on the copyvio status at all, so your claim was incorrect. You can try to put the blame on me as much as you want, but if the above is not what you meant, then you shouldn't have stated it like this. And if it is what you meant, then you shouldn't try to deny it now. Fram (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]