Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smugging

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 no consensus. No strong consensus to do much of anything with this article. Might be worth a try to start a merge discussion on the talk page. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 16:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smugging

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

Article was deproded following an opposition from a declared COI editor, but original issue still stands. This appears to be a case of WP:NEO with a few scattered usages of these new terms that are being utilized to promote specific clients of the COI editor. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- Reevaluated my opinion to Rename to Social media mugging and Keep: Many independent reliable sources are explaining the term, not just using it - which is exactly what WP:NEO policy requires to keep the article. This is not "usage in passing" but news sources reporting on its definition. At least Technorati, PC advisor and Easier provide feature-length articles about the concept as well as reports the origins of the term by Capital One. This verifiable information is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The hard test that this is not WP:NEO is that you could remove the term and rename the article with the descriptive "social media mugging" and the article's content would be the same.

Also, The original COI is not a reason to delete an article when it has been improved beyond just primary sources. Diego (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your thoughts, Diego. The three "articles" you references in Technorait, PCAdvisor, and Easier are all very close derivatives of the Capitol One press release in October of 2011. This does not amount to significant secondary reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to the Capitol One press release so that we can evaluate the similarities and differences? Diego (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here is the link [1]. Note it matches the Easier "article" almost exactly and the other two are just derivatives of the same around the same date. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they're just explaining the press release; does that really make it notable, or just mean that someone said it in a press release? If that's all it takes for something to be notable, though, well... huh. Regardless, if this is worth mentioning, any mention of it would still probably make more sense on a related page, not in its own article, given how little there is to talk about. — Isarra (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that PC advisor and Easier rely on the Capitol One press release for the term, it's not true that they're the only source for the topic. Technorati points to Moneywise, with points to previous coverage from themselves as well as Capitol One, and Mirror gives figures not for the topic not found at the press release. See also Depicting the UK's fraud landscape (2012 Edition). All these reliable sources are covering social media mugging, which is enough for the topic to met notability. That all them recognize the term 'smugging' as descriptive for the topic should be reason enough to use it ourselves and not consider it under WP:NEO, but if you don't agree then the article name can be changed while the content is kept. Diego (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and neologisms are not required either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I suggested this to the creator of these pages when they were prodded and I still think it is a good idea. The case for a stand-alone article is a bit thin but this term, along with the concept it describes, could be mentioned in the context of social networking. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confabulate _ 15:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 18:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect Seems like a dictionary entry to me. Its not notable enough at this time to warrent a seperate article. It should be recreated if more sources can be found and if this term becomes more widely used, which it is clear it is not. Outback the koala (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect no evidence of broad acceptance of the neologism, however its author is notable, so a mention in passing is deserved. However the target should not be "social network", but narrowed down to "Social networking service#Issues", or, probably to a potential merge section, "Social networking service#Issues#Unauthorized access". It does have a potential for expansion. I have seen a youTube video, kinda "How to hack your friend's Facebook account in 10 seconds", and it works! Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—This one passes my n-test. I agree with the argument of Diego, though I see no need to rename... 'smugging' is what the neologism is, and I don't see any guidance in NEO or anywhere else that we should title the article with the definition of the neologism. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:33, 3 May 2012 (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.