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. slakr^\ talk / 06:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social network poisoning[edit]

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

Very few (47) Google hits when Wikipedia mirrors, etc. are excluded. None of the provided sources are online for verification. Also see points brought up at Talk:Social_network_poisoning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Marokwitz (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While the concepts may be applicable to other topics for which we already have articles, the subject itself is a neologism which originated on it:wp. --Versa geek 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable neologism Also problems with verifiability. The first ref cites Kevin Mitnick's book "The art of deception" for the definition of "social network engineering," but a search of the book at Amazon does not show any occurrences of the word "poisoning" in the book. (Maybe the search engine got poisoned somehow) Google book search provides no hits for the specific phrase "social network poisoning." Neither did Google scholar. It does sound like a grabbag of tricks a hacker could use to subvert social networks. The same article was created at the Italian Wikipedia by user Paganinip on July 9, 2011 [1], also as his first edit. The first version in the English Wikipedia was also mostly in Italian. There has been nothing said on the discussion page of that Italian article. It acquired the same list of books as references, without page numbers to allow verification. The techniques described sound quite plausible, and it would be surprising if various schemes to fool or exploit social networking sites had not been implemented, such as bots creating false identities, or real users clicking on false affiliations. We need verification and actual references which can be discussed on the article talk page (or here) rather than original research followed by a bunch of general books on the topic being vaguely waved about as references for very specific statements in the text. It is not a good way to launch a Wikipedia article. If User:Pananinip still has access to the books he cites, then it should be easy enough to provide the page numbers, and to discuss exactly what the references say, on the article's talk page. Users have expressed this concern to him on his talk page. Edison (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the creator is still adding links that don't discuss social network poisoning. The sources look useful for other articles but as there seems to be discussion of the subject 'social network poisoning' we should not be put into the position of publicising a new concept/neologism. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2011 (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.