Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Likejacking

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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likejacking

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

It would be easier to merge this to Like button, but I've started a merge proposal for that article due to my disagreeing with that article's outcome at it's deletion request. The article is a stub, and there is not always a chance that some editor will come along and bring it to a starting-class article. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 19:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a perfectly valid concisely written article on a notable security exploit to me. I fail to see why some people have the urge to delete anything which can't be expanded to a multi-page piece. "Have they ever seen an actual paper encyclopaedia?", I wonder, most of their entries are even shorter our "stubs". This could be merged into Like button, but only if that would be kept as a separate article, while the nominator intend to also merge that particular article into Facebook. So, keep for now. —Ruud 12:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources provide prima facie evidence of notability. It is a short article, and perhaps should be merged to Like button or Clickjacking rather than kept separate, but I don't see any reason to delete the content outright. Robofish (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A popular term in this crazy tech world. Sources establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At best merge into Clickjacking, assuming the references listed in this article will be considered reliable. The definition and most of the sources refer to this exploit as a form of clickjacking; involving Facebook in it is a pretty minor difference. Sources which talk about "likejacking" specifically will presumably only cover how this exploit relates to Facebook; merging into a more general article will enable broader coverage. However, I would not hesitate to delete - most of the sources are blogs, which are normally to be avoided as sources. And this looks suspicious: Special:Contributions/Ballouc. It looks like the term's supposed originator has used Wikipedia to promote it. 87.205.137.250 (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2011 (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.