Template:Did you know nominations/2014 Snapchat hack

Nominated article converted into a redirect as a result of Articles for deletion/2014 Snapchat hack

2014 Snapchat hack

 * ... that Snapchat was hacked on January 1, 2014, resulting in the release of approximately 4.6 million usernames and phone numbers?
 * Reviewed: Domain Interchange

Created/expanded by Ethically Yours (talk). Self nominated at 07:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC).


 * The article is new and long enough. The hook is interesting and not too long. Symbol question.svg The hook is misleading and not directly supported with the sources. Approximately 4.6 million usernames and phone numbers are not released. The sources actually emphasize that a part of phone numbers and usernames were revealed at the website SnapchatDB.info which was shortly available and suspended at the same morning when it was created. To avoid misleading of the readers it is necessary to clarify that actually parts of phone numbers and usernames were revealed at Wednesday morning . --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that Snapchat was hacked on January 1, 2014, resulting in the release of 4.6 million usernames and phone numbers, a part of the total user base? Ethically (Yours) 12:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The point was not that a part of the total user base was revealed. The point was that parts of the phone numbers and usernames were temporarily revealed .--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The alternative hook might look something like:


 * ALT2... that after Snapchat was hacked, parts of approximately 4.6 million usernames and phone numbers were temporarily revealed in the morning of January 1, 2014?
 * It is also necessary to clarify this in the article too.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Clarified in the article. Ethically (Yours) 12:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There are some other issues in the article which should be taken care of before proceeding with this nomination.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed the issues. SnapchatDB.info seems to be back again. Since we don't know how long it's going to be there, how about this:


 * ALT3: ... that after Snapchat was hacked, parts of approximately 4.6 million usernames and phone numbers were revealed in a website named "SnapchatDB.info"? Ethically (Yours) 15:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sanpchat logo's summary does not give 2014 Snapchat hack permission to use it. You need to add another Non-free use rationale template on the image page explaining why it is necessary in the article. Crowz  RSA  18:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re ALT3, I don't think there is a particular need to add details of the website "SnapchatDB.info" to the hook. Some issues have not yet been addressed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can't help but feeling that this article may violate WP:GNG and WP:NPOV, and that its content should be integrated in the Snapchat main article. I mean, just how important is this in the scale of things? Sure, there has been a "good" level of coverage in the world's press, but I being reported in the media doesn't make it encyclopaedic. It is just one very very small episode in the era of internet security glitches, and ought not to be an excuse to create an article for DYK that may damage the company. If Snapchat was a person (yea, I know it isn't), WP:BLP would make us highly circumspect about creating such an article. More customer data has been hacked from Adobe and many others, or more data innocently "lost" by Mastercard, than this little company. Even if this causes the company to fold, which it won't, the text belongs in the parent. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, small hacks happen everyday, but something like a hack of 4.6m count database doesn't happen everyday. WP:GNG says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" Numerous reliable sources have covered it. How come does it fail? P.S on another note, Antidiskriminator, I have left a message on the talk page of the article about the issues you've raised. Let's get some possible consensus maybe. Then'll go ahead? Ethically (Yours) 07:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ohconfucius and arguments they presented. Additionally, this article of 8Kb should be merged into main article on Snapchat which is 28Kb. Both articles have the same scope or it largely overlap. This article is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time so it makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg The nominator has used the same QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Lungi Dance. Yoninah (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD maybe. I think it's a case of recentism, and there are parallels with the Sharon case – there was extensive news coverage of his illness and coma over the years, but the article was merged by a pretty strong consensus. I think in retrospect merging was the right decision. A hack of 4.6m count database isn't nothing, but it's not a big deal either in today's terms as the internet traffic grows and system administrators are still coming to terms with security implications. Also, it's not like its highly sensitive financial or personal data. The outcome of this hack could be perhaps a total of a few million spam calls or sms messages to some of the telephone numbers concerned. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 16:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note Some facts were embarrassingly wrong in the article and there are still some question marks about the some of the statements. The reliance on a yellow journalism headline in the lead was among them. Another was the fact that the vuln was communicated to Snapchat in August, not in December (a week before the hack). What happened a week before the hack was that the exploit code was made public. The article cites several lame source for vague claims when much better sources exist. If this article wasn't so late, its (merged) contents might have been suitable for WP:ITN. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg AfD closed; consensus is for a merge.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 23:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)