Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 celebrity pictures 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 snow keep. Can (and should) be revisited later (per WP:Consensus can change), but for now it's very clear that consensus is that it meets WP:NEVENT. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 celebrity pictures hack

AfDs for this article:
2014 celebrity pictures hack (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)

I speedily deleted this article as The Fappening but with all the news coming out, perhaps it is best to leave this up to an AfD to decide whether it meets WP:EVENT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The largest photo leak of its kind in history, covered in hundreds of reliable sources. Wincent77 (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: We have stringent content and verified sources as well as due emphasis guidelines for a reason, and as of its present form: 21:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC), this article is breaking many of them. WP:BLP would cover Apple, Inc., as well as the named women celebrities, yet little has been done to substantiate the lede, which in a worst hearsay fashion accuses it of having been compromised in its critical server operations. The body of the article only includes an External Links section entry addressing this, and that link is not enough. As a veteran Wikipedian, I have cautioned my younger colleagues on IRC #wikipedia-en for 18 hours now if not longer to hold their horses until technical RSes of substantive and encyclopedic grade become available. At present, this is only a murky unidentified-means crime story. --Mareklug talk 21:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable. Rather than waste time trying delete this article, editors should collaborate to expand the current one. It does need work, but there's no basis to deleting it. Bruce Campbell (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Wincent77 said, this is the largest security breach of its kind and probably the second most important security breach of the year, after Heartbleed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Major entertainment and software related news, though the article name need a name change--Stemoc 21:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We're not a fucking news source. We can afford to wait a few days and then actually determine the extent of the topic's notability and rely on purely reliable, verifiable, and actually true sources. A lot of users seem to think we have to be TMZ, in that if a story is breaking we have to have a post on it right away. We're not. Almost of the sources we have right now are full of lines like "suspected to be", "possibly", "are waiting for confirmation of" and the like. We've got sources quoting what they claim is the hacker, sources talking about how the hacker hasn't been found, sources saying its due to iCloud, sources saying it was a different type of hacking. It's a shit article. Maybe it should be recreated in a few days. But especially given the BLP concerns, there is no reason not to wait.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm a bit confused about all of the assumptions being made here. Could this be a major tech event that leads to a lot of changes? Sure. Could it also be some run of the mill type of hacking that leads to the story fading away in a week? Sure. And once you take away these assumptions of groundbreaking changes, you're left with the clear reason why WP:EVENT exists. As of now, stories about "Helen Mirren looking good in a Bikini" or "Lil Wayne comments on prison sentence" have also gotten their coverage from the same sources, but in those cases we didn't have people making unfounded assumptions about the actual significance of the incident.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Major incident. Notable event. --Tovojolo (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quite alot of press coverage, Notable event. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Notable and extraordinary. If further information comes out (if it hasn't already) that this was indeed related to "cloud" technologies/storage, I predict there could be a lot of content related to that as well in this article going forward. Never mind the individual celebrity responses. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should probably speedy keep/close this, WP:SNOW. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gonna have to disagree on that, pretty much every argument so far has been astoundingly weak and has failed to address the EVENT concerns, or is based entirely on a prediction that is yet to be confirmed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it can be potential legal threat for cloud storage technologies, such as multiple law enforcements. GamePad64 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is, up to now, one of the most significant privacy breaches that have occurred with any cloud service.--Keimzelle (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both that offensive redirect (which needs to be salted and obliterated out of existence; what are we, 12? And nope...that term hasn't appeared on my Twitter or Tumblr timelines, so it seems to be a headline writer's hope for a pub without an article here to get this out, not the actual term) and this form of the article, which reads as a giant BLP timebomb as-is. "Less sl** shaming of the victims than was usual" does not belong in any kind of article that purports to digest the details of this, and the common person is just going to question what the heck 'doxxing' is because they have no idea. This writing is shameful and so primary a fourth grader would red-mark this article ("an exploit of iCloud, where iPhone photos are automatically synced"? That kind of writing is just unacceptable, we can do much better). Also, those who confirmed the existence of the photos didn't just say 'yep, that's me'. They put out statements decrying that they got out, which needs to be expanded on to be acceptable for NPOV purposes. This needs better sourcing and a much more germane and less BLP-violating sludge than what appears now. If that happens, I will switch to a keep, but as-is? This is an unacceptable article. Nate • (chatter) 22:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the "offensive redirect" can be taken in a separate RfD. How hot is the sun? (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that nomination has been done. Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, or iCloud as suggested below. Where it's merged is less important than the fact that it needs to be merged. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summarize and merge into iCloud, as it is a notable incident in the security of that service. Delete "fappening", unless the name grow substantially beyond the 4chan community. -Fennec 23:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete setting apart from any moral consideration it simply fails WP:10YT. Wikipedia is not Noah's Ark of the Internet. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article easily meets the WP:GNG, and is quite a notable incident; the hacking of nude photos from multiple viewpoints is very significant and very notable. The threat of legal action for having the photos published even more so makes it notable; it implies that the subject sees it as a notable action to take rather than something so easily dismissed. Tutelary (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seriously doubt anyone would expect a celebrity to treat their photos being leaked as "something so easily dismissed", but I'm not sure what point that proves. Celebrities lawyers also often issue statements when they're accused of assaulting a photographer, are in a drunk driving accident, or were accused of getting plastic surgery in a newspaper. Incidentally, these are all also incidents that have happened, get coverage in the usual suspects, but are very clearly against WP:EVENT.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that they see it as a 'threat' enough that they would seek legal action to rectify this. (the people leaking and publishing it) Legal actions from celebrities are especially notable imho. Tutelary (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do agree that we could have waited longer before creating this so that the inaccurate information making the rounds in the media could have settled before our editors put their hands on it. Regardless, this is a truly unique event that has generated a considerable amount of coverage and is surely notable.LM2000 (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this is still worthy news a year from now, it might be considered for inclusion. But there are undoubtedly thousands of "leaked celebrity photos" incidents in our recent history (Lady Di, Jackie O, Cate Middleton), and there is no reason that this one merits a WP article. Also, I see no reason that nude pictures would be considered per se interesting when other major leaks of millions of credit cards and personally identifiable info is not. This is simply not 'pedia material. LaMona (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the article needs to return to the original name which is The Fappening'. Twobells (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies GNG on every cylinder. BLP must be maintained however.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - It's not so important that it starts another war in the Middle East or eliminates Al-Qaida once and for all, but it's an incredibly large hit on celebrities. It's not line one starlet releases some nude pics she claims was only intended for her ex-boyfriend, and then accuses the guy (rightly or wrongly) of splashing them all over the internet. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has received significant coverage all over the world. Alex (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event has become a major news event, making the front pages on most major news sites. In my personal view, it becomes notable and relevant as a celebrity story once it has made it beyond the gossip publications, and into serious news. Which this has, many times. The article has vastly improved in recent hours, and may still break some style guidelines, but it does not qualify for deletion. Wavemaster447(Need help? Ask me) 00:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major story, doesn't belong as a subcat to 4Chan, touches on a number of notable people, a major corporation, and numerous societal issues. FWIW while the name "the Fappening" is distasteful there're a ton of reliable news sources now using the name, I'm about to post links on the article's talk page.JamesG5 (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not required to use whatever garbage name the tabloid media/idiot Tweeters/Redditors/Channers have come up for with this. If we actually allow that term as a redirect I would rightfully justify anyone mocking WMF for doing so, and those who endorsed the use of such. Let's have a little sense and decency. Nate • (chatter) 01:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to clutter this up, see my note on the article's talk page with a stack of news sources using it.JamesG5 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This isn't just a '4chan leaked nudes' story, it has major implications in the technology spectrum, and it impacts a lot of celebrity articles as well as others. Lots of sources, big news, keep. Kaini (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there even a point of having this discussion now? This certainly isn't going to be speedily deleted or snow closed, and so it looks like this discussion is going to be nothing but people guessing and predicting. Which isn't too surprising given that this is an awfully made article that has to use allegedly in half of its sentences because almost every single fact is still awaiting confirmation, but still. If we find out in a week that this wasn't actually an iCloud hacking, or that the hack was actually by the department of state or aliens, or that it wasn't a hack at all but simply a user error, 90% of the !votes are suddenly irrelevant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep: The basis for the AfD, WP:EVENT, states that "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This story is clearly non-routine, received coverage in multiple reliable sources, and its impact are long lasting as to how to prevent such hacking. How hot is the sun? (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, how could we be forgetting that by long-lasting we meant "around 24 hours or so". And how could we also forget the part where we learned how the hacking worked, since you know about the long lasting impact about its prevention. Oh wait. We know almost nothing about it yet. You're just being ridiculous.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me to remind you of WP:Civility. As for the long-lasting, see Hunt begins for hacker behind Jennifer Lawrence nude photo theft. This will not disappear from the news any time soon. How hot is the sun? (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's uncivil at all. Your claim is still ridiculous. The article you linked proves my point. Every single thing in it is either alleged, suspected, or potentially. This is an article that has no choice but to be based on mush rather than substance because it was stupidly created before not just notability but the actual content could be confirmed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the hack only produced images of say one celebrity, then this would be a footnote on that celebrity's article and maybe another footnote on [iCloud]] but as of now, just over 20 celebs pic has been released and counting, this is not a 24 hour event, its an "ongoing" one as it not only related to nude images of celebrities but a major "bug" in a very well known online storage site ..as someone mentioned above, its quite similar to the Heartbleed bug..--Stemoc 03:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and what if it was not an iCloud breach. What if these were all separate situations that were simply released in one leak. Because that's the going theory it seems right now.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a major security breach, regardless of what the content of that breach is. There would be no discussion on keeping the article if, say, it was military secrets the CIA was trying to keep from North Korea n'at. It does bring the bigger issue on the reliability of cloud storage into discussion, especially after the recent Supreme Court case American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo did set somewhat of a precedent against cloud computing, even if the Supreme Court went out of its way and said that it was specifically targeting Aereo. Could it use a better title? Yes. But this is relevant enough to keep. Jgera5 (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article describes a somewhat significant occurrence involving notable people which seems to have attracted fairly wide and in-depth media coverage, and there are strong indications that it will get much more of it in the future as possible legal action is taken against [insert names]. Even if we choose to think that the event will be soon forgotten, we should suppress our urge to rush to delete the article for now – its deletion can wait until it's abundantly clear that the incident wasn't all that important after all. As for calling it "the fappening," I'm sure everyone here appreciates the crudeness of the phrase, but if it's indeed what most media outlets refer to it as, we have little choice but to follow suit; after all, Wikipedia is not censored. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG This is a major security breach regardless of how it happened. It is not just news, it is a historic event. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's reasonable to expect that the repercussions of this event will continue much longer than other hacks/leaks of intimate photos. The security of cloud storage will very likely become a continuing topic of conversation in light of this event. --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we can have Edison Chen photo scandal I don't see why this is not notable. Big Wang (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:RAPID states, "Articles about breaking news events ... are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete." This is international, front-page news today and so a deletion discussion is inappropriate. Come back and look at the topic in a week. Andrew (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very wide media coverage. Nergaal (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable media coverage and all the victims are celebrities and it clearly tells the world the security vulnerability of Apple (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew's argument. News coverage is still incoming and deciding on deletion right now is a little premature. I say that we give it a week or two and then re-visit this to determine if it is notable enough. It is receiving wide-spread, global coverage in multiple languages, so there's no end of sourcing to be found. What ultimately needs to be decided here is whether or not this will have any lasting notability, which cannot and probably should not be decided only a day or two after the event itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the biggest hacks in internet history. Maybe not the most complicated/geopolitical security risky/cash-worthy one but the one that whistleblew the internet security problems to a worldwide level. I know it may sound WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but since we don't have standards - as far as I know - for internet hacks I find it relevant that articles within Category:Robberies exist and probably deserve to be here, while internet thefts are discussed for AfD without having proper categories/criteria/classification. Leaks and internet leaks should have notability here and if it isn't established yet it's time to fix that. It's just the the tip of the iceberg. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons I laid out when submitted for Speedy Delete on Talk:2014 celebrity pictures hack. It's notable and topical, and I am even bold enough to say that this should be obvious. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The story has been covered extensively in the media, has serious legal and technological implications, involves a huge number of noteworthy people and is the subject of a (likely lengthy) high profile legal investigation. Frankly, I can't believe we're even discussing this. Freeranging intellect (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems very unlikely that this event can have a lid kept on it. Maybe in the future the excitement will die down and it will be merged elsewhere, but it seems to be at its dawn a notable case of breach of celebrity privacy. To the delete voters I would say, we're better than TMZ, even though we might wish this article didn't exist, it is more likely to a fairer and less sensational article than what the news coverage will be in the short term. The current article told me, w/in 30 seconds time, what this was all about. I can't get that on reddit, twitter, or any "news source".--Milowent • hasspoken 16:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: the event in question is clearly notable, and should be covered here. Even I who doesn't follow the news regularly heard about it on Freenode from several different people yesterday. I also searched for a wikipedia article in an attempt to better understand the technical exploit that enabled the leak. I believe we can and should cover it (without violating the victims' privacy). Shlomif (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is already being reported on mainstream and alternative media websites and television programs as one of the most significant news events of 2014 with wide-reaching implications for web security, hacking, cloud services, the double-standards of treatment for celebrities versus non-celebrities, and many more relevant issues. This article should not merely remain, but should be expanded. I would suggest however that the article be given a better more appropriate/relevant title. StickyWikis | talk — 16:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is compelling public interest in understanding the causes of this problem and the prevention of future incidents. The media has thoroughly reported on this topic, and there is no returning to a pre-release condition for the persons harmed. It is worth noting that under United States law, one usually has no right of privacy in what is knowingly disclosed to another party, including apparently cloud storage providers. I am not saying this is an entirely sound legal situation, but it does appear to be the law at this time. Marc W. Abel (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:LASTING, the event led the FBI to investigate the hackings and Apple to go ahead with new safety features with their phones to counter a repeat. WP:DEPTH, there are many reliable sources on the subject that discuss the hackings in detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep per a lot of the reasons listed above. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 2 September 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_celebrity_pictures_hack&oldid=1144945445"