Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoombombing

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. Practically unanimous. Basically all the merge !votes, and the lone redirect and delete !votes, all are based on "too soon", recentism, etc.; it's difficult to properly evaluate such things riiiiight in the middle of the whole thing while coverage is increasing throughout the news almost on a hourly basis and some "recentism" !votes have already been amended to keep; a justified "too soon" opinion on March 29th may have been different if posted just days later. No prejudice against renomination in a few weeks. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Zoombombing

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Zoombombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is content already largely mentioned at Zoom Video Communications, and seems to be a case of WP:RECENT and not deserving of its own encyclopedia entry. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. This article contains sufficient information and the topic is something that people will be searching for as a separate topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupertrussell1 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. The article includes sources which are not present (and should not be present) in the Zoom article. All sourcing is from gold-plated WP:RS and include NRK (Norway), The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, among others. Given the extremely high quality of the sources and the worldwide coverage, the article exceeds the WP:GNG. It should be noted that stand-alone articles routinely include content and sources already present in abbreviated form in other articles, and then fully expand on it with additional facts and sources, as encyclopedically appropriate. XavierItzm (talk) 03:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Good sourcing, as XavierItzm says. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Merge with Zoom Video Communications per WP:NOPAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. Yes, it's well sourced, but it can be adequately covered in the main article, where it would also benefit from additional context about the software. We don't need a stand-alone article for a flash-in-the-pan meme. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - This article doesn't need to be deleted, it has seven sources. However, it does need to be expanded because there isn't that much information in the article.
• Keep or merge to Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on teleconferencing or similar. This is not a Zoom-specific phenomenon.--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Zoom Video Communications. This can be mentioned in the article with a single sentence. It does not deserve a stand-alone article. This is not going to have lasting notability. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - Keep the useful information, or put that information elsewhere and keep the useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per XavierItzm. Gamaliel (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep and not merge - extensive sourcing in major WP:RS and has had a major effect on online education. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - yes, there are WP:RS discussing this phenomenon, but that's not the only requirement for whether something is notable and of encyclopedic value. I very much feel WP:RECENT and WP:SUSTAINED need to be heeded in cases like this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, you've said exactly that before and I disagree. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Zoom Video Communications (or another page) - There's no indication of lasting significance for this neologism, and we have all sorts of articles on trolling, videoconferencing, culture during covid-19, etc. where it could be briefly mentioned. Suggesting it point to the main Zoom article because it's already mentioned there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - I was skeptical, but this has continued to get very high-profile coverage since I !voted. Updating accordingly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep because it seems to refer to a broader social phenomenon that has little to do with Zoom itself, and more to do with changes to videoconferencing culture. Julius177 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Can you really point to a change in "videoconferencing culture" with 1 weeks worth of incidents? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The FBI has stepped in and said that video-teleconferencing and online classroom hijacking on any platform is "Zoom-bombing.". Ouch. XavierItzm (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Strong delete just as the nominator said, this “phenomenon” is too reliant on recentism and waaaaay too soon. It’s not even independently notable, frankly. ⌚️ (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep because people have been complaining about this problem for years. It just wasn't widely noticed until now because of the uptick in use of the platform. It also has specific implications for Zoom, versus other platforms, because of the nature of the meeting IDs, screen-sharing settings, etc. that inexperienced users don't know how to protect. Librarian lena (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• Keep zoombombing is an important phenomenon and will be a new word in the English dictionary. We had to take several measures at my university (MIT) to protect ourselves against this form of cyber disruption. I believe this will be an important Wikipedia article and could also show some statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.47.83 (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge or keep Zoombombing should definitely be merged. It is a stub, just merge it with the Zoom article. 104.62.158.32 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It is now a WP:COMMONNAME. Please witness "zoombombing" - Google Search & how many results it produces. Peaceray (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Just want to point out WP:GOOGLEHITS. ⌚️ (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: To your point, WP:GOOGLEHITS indicates "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search."

• zoombombing - Google News

I will concede that it is a little soon for zoombombing to be mentioned in books, so nothing in Google Books. Similarly, while zoombombing is appearing now at Google Scholar, what I have seen there as of 2020-04-03 is either irrelevant or not particularly scholarly.

Peaceray (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Zoom Video Communications. I was thinking to keep, but this article can probably be adequately sumerized in the main article. Mostly per SpicyMilkBoy. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Zoom Video Communications. I don't feel this is notable just yet per WP:RECENTISM. Interstellarity (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge as we usually do with neologisms that have attracted news coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Zoom Video Communications for now. At the moment, the coverage (and the name) generally relates specifically to the Zoom app, and the content is short enough to be included in that article. If this becomes a lasting phenomenon which affects video conferencing more generally, then we can reconsider restoring this as a separate article. Robofish (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The Zoombombing main article is six multi-sentence paragraphs backed by 17 sources.
The FBI and the New York Times, quite separately (the NYT a week before the FBI) have defined zoomboming as including any videoconferencing software. Several of the sources refer to non-Zoom platform attacks. Is the merge option even viable? XavierItzm (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to Zoom Video Communications as per Robofish. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. When readers read the CNN article with the headline "FBI warns video calls are getting hijacked. It's called 'Zoombombing'" and go to Wikipedia to search for the term, they should reach this article. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
• I am in favor of keep. There are numerous similar services to Zoom and "Zoombombing" can generically refer to an unauthorized intrusion into a videoconference on any platform, not just Zoom. Some thought should be given to the emergence of future content that may be added. Special legislation may be enacted to curtail this new form of malfeasance. There may occur notable instances. There may be discussion of the effects, or how to guard against this, or how it is handled in court cases. A person may hear the term "Zoombombing" and not know what it means. For all these reasons, I would recommend to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirtyDoggg (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Rosiestep. There are now enough sources to WP:RS to justify a definite keep. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

References

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.