Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Snapchat hack


 * 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 Merge into Snapchat. As User:NinjaRobotPirate said, If it turns out to have lasting consequences, it can always be recreated. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

2014 Snapchat hack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:EVENT - just a minor blip in the history of snapchat - no evidence of last effect. Beerest 2 talk 15:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Event had outspread coverage by multiple reliable sources. Ethically (Yours) 16:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:EVENT and WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to main Snapchat article. WP:EVENT is probably not satisfied in this case - it's really just a minor blip in Snapchat's history and can easily be summarized there.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Snapchat. Could easily be summarized there.  If it turns out to have lasting consequences, it can always be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - multiple reliable sources. much coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant amount of coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A lot of coverage isnt what we look for in a event. The two of you are AFD veterans, you should know this. Beerest 2 talk 21:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Snapchat. as noted above, this single event fits well under the general article of the company.Dialectric (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge: as I argued on this one's DYK submission, 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! 14:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SMERGE to Snapchat. Light on facts. Not significant enough for its own page, lacking any sort of long-term impact. The drivel/filler commentary should be pruned. (Epic example: "some Snapchat users posted to Twitter that they were not worried about the hack". Whoaaa...) The arguments above for keeping this are essentially WP:109PAPERS. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Snapchat. The basic notable details can easily be described within main article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've edited this article a fair bit to make it more factually correct. While it's true that the coverage actually spans more than a narrow interval because it took four months (not a week as the article claimed initially) from the initial vulnerability disclosure to the hack (the exploit source code that any script kiddies could use was released a week before the hack), it can still be described in 3-4 paragraphs with plenty of technical details if one omits the filler blather. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2014 (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.