- Checkmarx (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I’ve been working on this draft after finding it curious that this page didn’t already exist. Came across the issue on the Insight Partners page and was surprised given their role in exposing some pretty big name security vulnerability issues. I ran with it, thinking it was an appropriate article to create, especially coming across other pages in the same arena that are seemingly less notable. I didn’t realize the long deletion history on this draft until it was ready to go. Honestly I probably wouldn’t have even given this one the time had I seen that first. But since it’s already been done, thought it would be worth giving this another shot. The company has a lot of coverage and has been involved in high profile security issues (Amazon Alexa, Google and Samsung smartphones, Tinder (app), etc.). From what I could see, it’s obvious the past deletion issues were from COI editors, and explains why it was even attempted before they actually reached a notable status - it should be noted that all of these high profile issues have come out since the last attempts that I can see on this draft, and I believe these tip the notability scale. Given the history, it’s sure to come up, so I want to put it out there that I have no vested interest in this company, other than the fact that I have a curiosity for cybersecurity. I’m requesting to have the draft reviewed (currently in my sandbox: User:Metromemo/sandbox) and the lock removed on this page if others agree that it meets WP:GNG. Metromemo (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation; deletion was 7 years ago and the draft seems fine. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse all previous AFDs and all previous DRVs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow re-creation in Draft, knowing that the result will be reviewed twice, once at AFC, and then again at Articles for Deletion. We are only agreeing to allow a neutral editor to try to do what paid editors have repeatedly failed to do so far. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the Checkmarx and Checkmarx (company) that have AFDs, this has also been deleted at CHECKMARX, CheckMarx, Checkmarx (corporation), User:Tschnick/sandbox, User:Checkmarx (talk), File:Checkmarx_Logo.jpg, File:Checkmarx_v4_code.pdf (which, appallingly, consisted of the wikitext of one of the deleted articles), Draft:Checkmarx (MfD discussion), and Draft:Checkmarx/אסף רזון. There's also CxQL (AfD discussion) and User:CxQL (talk) for their internal software, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/checkmarx.com (which is still blacklisted), and c:File:Newlogo67BS.png. And that's just what turned up with my first zero-effort regex; there's likely more around.All this isn't to say that an article on this company is forever impossible. But any new one is going to have to pass a very, very strict check of our notability and sourcing guidelines to get accepted. This is about as clear of a User:JzG/And the band played on... situation as it gets. —Cryptic 19:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, what a mess. I only saw about 3 attempts, so this goes deeper than I thought. Interested to see how it pans out given the history. Metromemo (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation (no need for AfC). As noted, this is likely going to AfD no matter what. As far as I can tell, the last attempt to create this was around 2014. So while there was a ton of effort to get this to have an article, that seemed to stop and it became notable. It's not so clearly notable that an AfD is right out, but there is no reason to walk through AfC first. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation, either in mainspace or in draft. If in draft, an AfC review is in no way required, althoguh it might be helpful. Significant time has elapsed sicne the various previous deletions, and evidence for notability seems to be stronger now. I have not revieweed the current draft for readiness for mainspace. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Are User:Hobit and User:DESiegel recommending unsalting, if they say to permit creation in mainspace? It is currently salted in mainspace, as it should have been, with the history of deletions, and the history of the gaming of names. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. Given it's a really new account that created it, I can see the reasons for concern. But the topic is clearly over the bar for notability and it seems to be written in a fairly "just the facts" kind of way (too much so IMO--a summary of what the company does and how it makes money would be nice even if that has to come from primary sources). AfC is, IME, unlikely to see the approval of an article that is salted. And frankly, AfC should never be a required process--it's just too much of a hot mess. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I had missed that it was salted, but it makes sense that it had been. Yes I am favoring unsalting here, basedm on the content of the current draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with unsalting, or allowing re-creation in mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grenoble jojo, which simply illustrates that there is an old history of misconduct, enough of a history to provide reason for caution in the present. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Realizing I just responded above: to what point? I'm trying to understand how AfC helps us here other than creating a hurdle. Do you think the topic doesn't meet WP:N? Do you think it's too promotional? Something else? Why does it need further review? What can AfC do that we can't do here? Hobit (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see the relevance of the SPI, they newest section of which is from 2017. There is, I take it, no suggestio that Metromemo is a sock or a paid editor, correct? Is ther na serious doubt that this topic is notable? whether the sandbox deft is sufficiently developed for mainspace is a separate question, but I strongly object to using AfC as some sort of required hurdle. its purpose is (or should be) to assist inexperienced editors in cresting valid articles and in knowing what is valid. Any user in good thing can always move any draft to mainspace, without an AfC review, if s/he thinks in good faith it is ready for mainspace. To say otherwise would require a policy change approved by a site-wide RfC. This was salted because of abusive attempts to create promotiojnal content. No one argues that the surrent sandbox draft is abusive or promotional, do they? That sockpuppets, some of whom may have been paid editors also, formerly engaged in promotion on this topic does not make the current drqft any worse, does it? We are not trying the punish the company by withholding an article because of previous promotion, that the company may have been responsible for, are we? I hope not. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert McClenon as you should know, many AfC reviewers simply will not approve a draft if the title is salted, although that is not in accord with the written AfC rules. What path forward for this draft are you suggesting? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's an article with a really shitty history, but this draft is fine. I've been over it carefully with a skeptical eye, and I'm confident that this is in line with Wikipedia's other articles about corporations. Unsalt and move to mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Replying to User:DESiegel, I have provided my opinion in an essay. More specifically, I am willing to accept that User:S Marshall has been the reviewer, and that it can be desalted and accepted into article space based on the review of User:S Marshall as a neutral experienced editor. It can still be reasonably taken to AFD. In my opinion, with that history, it should be discussed at AFD, because the consensus should be that of the community rather than only of two or three neutral editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
