Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Facebook outage

2024 Facebook outage

[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)

recentism. fails a ten year test and probably a one year test as well. ltb d l (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Redirect. Short (albeit worldwide) outage, not notable. [Update: Redirect per User:Ritchie333 below.] Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously too soon, not obviously different from a usual outage. If any relation to Super Tuesday is noted by RS, I can imagine the outing being covered in the 2024 United States presidential election article, but not in its own stand-alone article. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 17:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But also consider discounting my !vote because I was made aware of this offwiki. GMG ^talk 17:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 Facebook outage and rename as Meta services outages, with a redirect from Facebook services outages, to parallel Google services outages. Fences&Windows 18:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this merge. 2021 Facebook outage has detailed coverage of a particular outage and it would not improve that article to merge with others. We could make a Meta services outages (and I'd be fine merging this there) but I'd still keep 2021 Facebook outage as a separate page. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outage. This is one of those cases where I'd say "I wish we didn't have the article right now", but since we do, then it was worth seeing if it could be destubbed. It probably can't, so it can go in the parent article, which was my initial intention of putting in a sentence or two. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 that article is already too long (with a boilerplate notice on top about excessive page size). I think @Fences and windows's proposal is better. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think it is too early to create this article as there is not enough information or events + Is every outage we're going to create a single article about? that convert Wikipedia into a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS) and I think we should merge all previous articles to one article. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a significant event. Fails WP:NSUSTAINED. --WikiLinuz (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clealy does not meet notability guidelines. There is a very small chance it is WP:TOOSOON but much more likely it has no notability at all. WP:NOTNEWS applies and under either policy and GNG, this one is a clear delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per Ritchie333. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / Keep WP:RECENTISM is an essay about something that happens at wikipedia, not a deletion criteria or policy. Part of the essay even makes an argument about recentism being good. Ten year test is similarly just one way to measure that. There is clearly enough coverage to meet WP:Notability, which is an inclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria of WP:Notnews don't apply; this is not "original reporting" (it relies on other news reports as primary sources), and it's clearly neither "who's who" or "celebrity gossip and diary." The closest notnews exclusion would be "news reports." However, the news reports exclusion is specifically for being WP:ROUTINE information, while those being used are not. I would support merging to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outage as providing the appropriate level of coverage. However, I'm concerned that page has been tagged as "too long to read and navigate comfortably" since 2021. It should be cleaned up and possibly split into sub-articles before information is added. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NOTNEWS is policy. I do not understand how you think the policy does not apply, saying it is because the article relies on other news reports as primary sources. That is exactly why it does apply. And as you say, the article is built on primary sources, which is why it does not meet GNG either. Sources should be secondary for notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mistyped; I meant "it relies on other news reports not primary sources." Now, looking at WP:PRIMARY I see that "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." (Which is a wikipedia-ism that I didn't realize before.) Though, in fairness to the stub-like nature of the article, it's done a pretty good job of limiting to verifiable facts without spinning into the problems of breaking news. Meanwhile, also policy is WP:BREAKING explicitly gives guidelines for handling breaking news which includes WP:DELAY (which we're too late for; already created) and WP:RAPID which is exactly this discussion. All of that said, I still think that merging would be appropriate - if the target for merge didn't need so much cleanup. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]