Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DevOps toolchain

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 Keep as I simply see nothing else regarding endings (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DevOps toolchain[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails to be a notable Software development process, couldn't find any reliable source for it. Kavdiamanju (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep F-ing ridiculous. Another hair-trigger obsessive CSD sniper (this was first CSD-ed as "vandalism" and discussion refused, see User_talk:Kavdiamanju#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_DevOps_toolchain) who needs a damn good topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, On this platform, I do not expect words like F-ing ridiculous and damn good topic ban. I can understand that you might not agree to the AFD and nomination, you can openly express your views and raise your voice agianst it, but certainly it doesn't mean that you can use any words for any individual here on Wikipedia. Kavdiamanju (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't behave like such a monumental WP:DICK. You described a new article on an obvious technical area of current interest (which I assume you have no familiarity with) as "vandalism" and tried to speedy delete it. Then, instead of discussing your nonsensical speedy deletion request (far from your only one) you simply went to AfD. You missed out WP:PROD, BTW. Your judgement is clearly not fit to be trusted with CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be reliably sourced. Didn't check the sources but I assume that nominator did WP:BEFORE, but I see no mention of their unreliability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple reliable sources included Gartner and Forrester the notion that it fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability is preposterous. Kharnagy (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Baseless AfD nomination. Thparkth (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who actually works in the field knows that DevOps is a notable topic of interest in contemporary IT. (Whether or not this contains enough information to justify a separate article, as opposed to merger into the DevOps article, is a matter I don't express an opinion on, but that's not what the nom is proposing anyway.) I second Andy Dingley's exhaustion with people who rush to whack CSD tags on things without even bothering to spend five minutes to research the topic. SJK (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.