JamesG5, why are you picking low quality sources? What serious journalistic source is going to refer to this incident as The Fappening? Any?, ,, - Neil N talk to me 04:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC) NeilN That was off an initial Google search last night. One of the goals of editors is not to make Wikipedia look stupid. JamesG5 ( talk) 02:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Something Baseball Bugs said on another topic is relevant here. Like I said, it's probably a better argument for a redirect page, for the simple fact that a) people will come looking for it under that name and b) without a redirect people will likely mistakenly create new pages for it. JamesG5 ( talk) 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC) If those are the best sources you're coming up with for that name, the argument doesn't seem very strong.- Yaksar (let's chat) 01:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC) As mentioned those are only a small sample, and it's still less than 48 hours in to the event. Even if the article heading isn't changed to this it should be included as a mention in the article & there should be a redirect page so people searching for 'The Fappening' can find this page. The other name being used both in online discussions and news sites is 'Leakgate 2014' but that conflicts with some political scandals and is in less use. Those may not all meet Wikipedia standards, but they're a smidgen of the ones out there, the name clearly has currency & traction. Twobells ( talk) 00:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Got proof it's the WP:COMMONNAME? Tutelary ( talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Tutelary, I was typing this as you posted: While that name's unfortunate I have to agree, there are multiple news sources all using the name, here are a few: . The article needs to return to the original name which is The Fappening.

4chan deleted threads archive