Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoom face

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom face

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Had been deproded by the creator. Case of what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NAD. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article. The refs I put in the article look fine to me - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Desertarun (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found more refs that I haven't put in the article - [6] [7] [8] Desertarun (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Desertarun Sorry but "I created the article" is not a sufficient explanation why your article should be kept. And no matter how many references you find is does not contradicts that this is a subject not suitable for Wikipedia. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the refs indicate notability. The term is discussed by the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph and many others. Desertarun (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination fails to provide a reason to delete. The prod was obviously disruptive as one should expect opposition from the creator when the article is newly-created and the prod process is not to be used in such cases. WP:NAD is irrelevant because the focus of the topic is not a particular word. It's just the usual confusion as WP:NAD explains:
One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NEO, To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (italics in original). So are the sources in the article about the term "Zoom face", or are they simply using "Zoom face" to discuss something else?

1-Forbes - about cosmetic tips the reader can use if seeing themselves on video chats is making them self-concious. Uses the term as a hook to get the reader interested, but is not about it.

2-BBC podcast - people having a conversation about not liking video chat and the various problems dealing with it, not even just self-conciousness about appearance, then an interview. The conversations didn't use the term, it showed up once in the host's introduction, and once in the interview, in an eight and a half minute podcast.

3-Telegraph - article only available to subscribers. However, since the article's subheading is "How to do your make-up for video conference meetings, like The Duchess of Cambridge" and it's written by someone identified in the byline as the "Beauty Editor at Large", it seems likely that the article is about cosmetics advice, not the term.

4-Guardian - probably the closest to being about the term (it certainly uses it the most), but it looks like this article's really about how the beauty industry is capitalizing on women feeling increased self-conciousness about their appearances as a result of video chats.

5-Glamour - advice about what the reader can do if they are feeling self-concious as a result of video chats. Term only appears in the headline.

6-Get the Gloss - term only appears in the little blurb introducing the article.

7-Wired - term does not appear.

8-The Face - about the social phenomenon of self-conciousness from video chats. Aside from the headline, the term first appears in the sixth paragraph in a quote from a doctor interviewed for the article, which is significantly later than what you'd expect if the article was about the term.

I'd say that these articles use the term, but are not about the term (and so are the Sun and CNA linked above), so this falls under WP:NOTNEO. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to your notes above the term is discussed explicitly and directly in 7 out of the 8 refs. We don't need the whole article to be a discussion about the term. Desertarun (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the WP:GNG, you see that it states "Significant coverage". A passing mention, as in many of those articles, does not count for significant coverage. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The words "Zoom face" are in the headline of each of the references, so the author thinks that much of what they are writing refers to Zoom face. Desertarun (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge to Teleconference or Videotelephony): Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Egsan Bacon. Term is mostly a neologism that has no significant coverage or use by most of society. Kosmosnaut87 22:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Seems notable, but going on common sense, this isn't really that notable. Also needs a total makeover, maybe a TnT is needed. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and Egsan Bacon Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Much of the article is just raw quotations with no supplementary information, and not encyclopedic. Avilich (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most sources appear to include the word "Zoom" for SEO purposes. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points brought up by Egsan Bacon. This doesn't seem like a phenomenon unique to Zoom, the term isn't covered extensively in the sources given, and the subject of self-awareness and body image in the digital era (which seems like the crux of this article) is better covered elsewhere. Waxworker (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2021 (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.