From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outages. This is how I've decided to close this discussion as an ATD. What I would recommend is to follow the suggestion mentioned several times here to create a Meta services outages article and then content from this article-turned-redirect can be Merged there. I think that is a better use of editor time than to contest this AFD closure. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Facebook outage

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

2024 Facebook outage (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(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
    I agree with Elli, the 2021 Facebook outage is fine as a page, but creating a Meta services outages page could be useful. Another possibility is broadening the scope of that new article and splitting out the "technical issues" section of the overburdened Criticism of Facebook page. Darker Dreams ( talk) 00:41, 6 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
  • Delete -- zero assertions of notability. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article not meet notability guidelines. Ayane connect me! 01:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Was down for two hours, nothing out of the ordinary for a website. Doesn't compare to the Rogers outage in Canada or the At&T outage that lasted much longer. I don't see this as being notable; at best could be a mention in a "facebook in 2024" article. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete / Merge - If the situation is same as the 2021 Facebook outage article, then we can consider merging it with another article as per Ritchie333's suggestion. As this is just a login error and not the server having an error, then we can consider deleting this article. Weareblahs ( talk) 05:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a 2 hour outage is nothing, at a minimum these outage article should be at least 12 and preferably 24 hours. As per not news, if there is anything unusual about the outage a line or two in the [{Facebook]] article is enough. Gnan garra 06:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Disagree, while the length of the outage was only 2 hours, its impact was much more widespread than just "a web site" AShugg ( talk) 10:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fb may be considered more than a just a website, yesthe impact is wide spread given its global reach. The issue is every incident article worthy, is this one of such significance(not based of the number of news reports). Any outage of these types of companies should be based on the reason not the numbers reporting it, and then asked if it can be covered in better ways. This incident is minor and can be covered with just a passing note in the main article for now. Gnan garra 11:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with 2021 Facebook outage to create Meta services outages per suggestion by @ Fences and windows. It is not the length of the outage that was significant, but its impact - not only Meta smartphone/web applications (FB, Messenger, Instagram, Threads, WhatsApp, more?) were affected, but any third-party app or service using OpenID to provide a "Log in with Facebook" function so that users don't need to create a new account and password. People were locked out of systems without even realising that they were indirectly depending on Facebook to be functioning correctly. As such it is a noteworthy lesson for Internet users. AShugg ( talk) 10:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Criticism of Facebook: Or create Meta services outages and transfer there. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Wait a month or so, honestly. Merge with Criticism of Facebook; 0 signs of sustained coverage after two weeks. The article states that "impacts from the outage" are still being investigated, so we can't know for sure whether or not this event meets or will meet the "lasting effects" criteria or the ten year test. Additionally, since it's recent, we don't have any evidence that future coverage will be sustained or not. I wouldn't significantly oppose merging, though. ObserveOwl ( chit-chat • my doings) 08:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC) (edited 00:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)) reply
    This is an argument that it is WP:TOOSOON. Per that essay, you might argue for keeping this in draft, even though clearly not ready for mainspace now. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The essay seems to focus more on topics that haven't yet been significantly covered in reliable sources and fail verifiability, which is not the case here. It doesn't mention much about sustained coverage or impacts from events. ObserveOwl ( chit-chat • my doings) 09:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    What secondary sources cover Tuesday's outage? Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article's reference section highlights sources like The Independent, BBC News and The Washington Post that synthesize information from primary sources, such as Twitter/X and Downdetector reports and statements from Meta and US cybersecurity officials, into somewhat comprehensive articles, meeting the "synthesis" part of WP:SECONDARY. ObserveOwl ( chit-chat • my doings) 11:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, these are all reporting the event (unsurprising as they are news reports about the event). They are primary. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. This is true of all the sources in the article save one. I was prepared to accept this is secondary: [1], although there might be other things to say about it. But that is moot as that article is talking about the 2021 outage. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    You can't really know what lasting secondary coverage there will be after an event until... you know, a bit after the event. Rushing to AfD isn't particularly constructive. Elli ( talk | contribs) 15:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Flip that around: rushing to create the article isn't particularly constructive. If you think this may be notable one day (I don't, incidentally) then it can be draftified and worked on pending the arrival of secondary sources. That is the thrust of WP:TOOSOON also. I wouldn't oppose draftify as a WP:ATD although I suspect you might be wasting your time. I could be wrong on that though. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 15:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes, I agree that rushing to create articles on current events that might not be notable isn't particularly constructive. However, once the page exists, rushing to delete isn't helpful either. Two months from now this discussion would be much clearer and the harm of having this page exist for two months while probably not being notable is negligible. Elli ( talk | contribs) 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Wait per WP:RAPID.-- Ideophagous ( talk) 20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Okay, it's a week later and we need to see more of a consensus. Right now we have editors arguing for Delete, Redirect/Merge (but with different target articles suggested) and Wait which I'm assuming is actually a Keep argument. This article was created fast and AFD'd fast, has the passage of time clarified the situation any?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 12 March 2024 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2024_Facebook_outage&oldid=1214594565"