Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Inc.

Shadow Inc.

 * 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 Fuzheado &#124; Talk 13:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. They're in the news today, so a WP:RECENTISM burst led to the creation of the page. Not likely to pass the WP:10YT. PROD was declined by the article's creator. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP, I started the article, and just re-added details about the company and details about the campaigns and localities it has worked with. Victor Grigas (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually, this is a very notable company at the present time, due to its role in the Iowa caucus debacle and the growing level of attention it is now getting. I would recommend revisiting the subject in six to eight months, at which point we can see whether it is a flash in the pan subject or something with staying power. Capt. Milokan (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. It's either notable now or it isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The listed references demonstrate that not only is this a notable company, but they're all over the news. Notability isn't temporary, but I can definitely see long-term interest in the discussion of election security. -- Tavix ( talk ) 04:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I think it would be a better fit to redirect to this section here: 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses.David O. Johnson (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a company that is widely seen as responsible for botching one of the most visible electoral events in USA, which in turn is part of arguably the most followed election on the planet, with major ramifications on said election going forward, and has sources all over the place. If that's not notable enough, I'm not sure what is honestly.WRain (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - They played a huge role in the Iowa caucus issues which may impact the primaries as whole, so they clearly meet the guidelines for notability. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 05:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Today's debacle, apparently caused by this company, is the co-lead story. The debacle will get revisited if, when or if replaced, as this same company processes results in Nevada.  Over ensuing years, the debacle will get revisited when Iowa's place as the first pseudo voting in the primary season, thus the location all candidates flock to the months before the presidential campaign, will get revisited.  And the fact that the apparent winning Pete Buttigieg campaign, as seen in the late results following this debacle also purchased $43,000 in services from this same company.  There's got to be a story in that.  The big loser Joe Biden campaign also paid them, but only $1,225.  Is $41,775 the cost of favorable election results these days?  I think this company will keep rebounding into the news for the next few weeks.  It has the potential to become a frequently raised subject and people will come to wikipedia to find out what it is.  That's why we're here.  It already is a component of a complicated election season.  It shouldn't get deleted based your assumptions or prejudices.  Capt. Milokan is correct to say we might revisit this later when we know if they disappear from view. Trackinfo (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep while it is in the news at least. Once everything has died down, and we have the clarity of hindsight, we can always delete it later. Thue (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Should we go deleting articles about elections that happened decades ago because interest as died out? If it is worth it to stay in Wikipedia now, then it should be always. If it is to be deleted, then now is as good time as any. - Sarilho1 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That was not my point at all. My point was that allowing a small amount of time to pass will give us access to much more information about whether the company is notable. So since there is no negatives in allowing a potentially non-notable entry to exist for a few weeks, debating it now is 1) A waste of time 2) Might make a the wrong decision because of the limited information. Thue (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Grinbergs (talk)
 * Keep - People are going to want to know what the background of this company is due to the Iowa situation. To delete it would be a disservice to users; Much better to enhance the content. KConWiki (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP, Why delete this? At least wait until we know the whole story.  Other states may still use their app, or not.  Until it becomes obscure deleting is way to premature.  The logic to delete the article is flawed as everything is obscure before it is important.Mschaffer (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - This topic appears to be fully notable, and there is no justified reason to delete it. NomadicNom (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - topic is notable. The company might be in the news cycle throughout the election year, due to their involvement with various campaigns and the DNC.Resnjari (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. WP:NOTNEWS, coverage seems trivial, in passing and WP:ONEEVENT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, with no prejudice to renomination in a six months or a year if the coverage goes away. I see the WP:NOTNEWS point, but I'd rather give this one time to see if it goes away.  At worst, redirect to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses where it is mention, but I would prefer keep. Hog Farm (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given coverage of the recent debacle, they easily pass GNG with quality sources that are quite critical of Shadow Inc.--Eostrix (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm normally sympathetic to the NOTNEWS argument, but the botched primary and Shadow Inc.'s role in it have lasting significance and are getting a lot of coverage. Consider speedy keep because there is no consensus to delete. buidhe 16:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP This company is the software developer for the 2020 Democrat Iowa Caucus app. Unfortunately, it made headlines due to its App unable to perform its software function. This article should be considered as notable.SWP13 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * REDIRECT the page to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses or similar. Only reason the company is known is because of the events related the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses, so anyone reading this article will need the context present on said article. Politicians using one's services don't make a company relevant. If new findings, such as collusion between some candidate and the company, appear or events happens that increase the relavance of this company past what a section on the caucus is supposed to cover, then this article and historic can be easily recovered. At the moment, it has not enough relevance to exist as a stand-alone article. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Super-notable: beside the obvious perceptions of favoritism/nepotism/impropriety between Buttigieg strategist husband and Shadow wife, many important software engineering process questions wrapped up in this spectacular debacle. A proper software project would do a post-mortem to identify failures; since they're a private company, they may not share, but techies will speculate:
 * Why all the effort and expense of apps - iOS and Android - instead of basic website?
 * Why use TestFlight/TestFairy instead of proper/official enterprise app installation?
 * App crashed on launch for Motherboard on 1 of 2 Android phones
 * Was flaky rural cellular service part of the data-transmission debacle?
 * If so, was there no Wifi VPN backup?
 * Did they do server load-testing for up to 1700 users?
 * Did they have fail-over servers/load-balancing to prevent database write locks?
 * Should they have used DHS for cybersecurty check? (Unclear if this might be GOP agenda talking point.)
 * Did they do any *field* testing in Iowa?
 * Who answered the tech support phones?
 * We are not here doing investigative research or engaging in techie speculation. How exactly is any of your points an argument for keeping an encyclopedic article? We really can't put "perceptions" on the reference section, how obvious one might find them. - Sarilho1 (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I don't have a general notability concern. I do think WP:RECENTISM and WP:10YT are reasonable questions and worth revisiting in the future, but right now I imagine this company will be relevant in the next Iowa Caucus or two, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is still quite relevant in 8-12 years. My concern is actually that this article has serious WP:ATTACK potential, given what I've been seeing at Tara McGowan over the last 24 hours, and this page will take some serious WP:NPOV work. I think that if it cannot be demonstrated soon that it can be written in a neutral way, without mentioning specific people in a disparaging manner, then it should not just be deleted but speedily deleted. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This company will forever be a significant part of the history of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Cullen<sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, there are RECENTISM and NPOV concerns, but given the nature of the coverage of this company and how it relates to the Iowa caucuses, I think it has an excellent chance of demonstrating coverage not limited to one news cycle. If not, it can always be deleted later. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, and will be a significant historical entity.-- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  04:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is WP:RECENTISM then we cannot have a single article from a topic in which interest was generated by a current event. WP:SNOW, not a chance in hell this is getting deleted, in one day it is already approaching 5k views []- clear demand by our readership. Also, even were it not for the recent event, the app's role in the political process of the most powerful nation on the planet is itself notable.--Calthinus (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now per WP:RAPID. If we never hear about this company again after this news cycle passes, then we could consider a merge with Acronym (political organization). There's content here worth saving in some form. I don't think a redirect to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses would be appropriate considering this company is also involved with other state Democratic parties and presidential campaigns. Surachit (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - A keeper if I ever saw one. Have you seen the WP:RSs it includes?  How anyone could argue for deletion is just beyond me. XavierItzm (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete When someone is murdered and that is the only thing notable about them, we write an article about the event, not the person.This app is only notable because of the event (the delay in getting results out). If it hadn't been for the delay nobody would care who made the app. So we should redirect it to the 2020 Iowa Democratic Caucuses page. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, as a non-American, I realized that absolutely everything that has ever happened or been speculated on during Presidential elections makes its way into Wikipedia. Any other country on earth and half the stuff written would be deleted for not being notable. Like 90% of this article is speculation but because it has to do with US politics that speculation becomes noteworthy. I highly doubt anybody would ever give this much slack to the politics of Mongolia or Peru. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very good point, and an extremely funny one. However, I don't think this is actually an argument for deleting articles like this. I think it's an argument for trying to improve coverage of Mongolian politics. My dream is that one day Wikipedia will have ample articles about obscure topics in Mongolian politics. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please do feel free to expand our coverage of political processes in other nations; clearly, it is lacking.--Calthinus (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete All of the relevant information in this article can be moved to the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses page, the company is otherwise entirely non-notable. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Yes, a recent event brought it into the spotlight, but it is now a small part of American electoral history. Even if it weren't, it seems nonsensical to exclude the entry of a company with the influence that it has. -- sarysa (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge+redirect In my opinion, the only convincing argument I'm seeing for removing the article is that the only notable thing about this company was the Iowa Caucus incident. In that case, move all of the content of the article into a page or subsection about the incident and leave a redirect. This isn't a reason to delete the page history, and I've got to admit that it gets frustrating seeing so many decent arguments for merging being used to advocate deletion. With all of that said, I'm not entirely convinced that the page as is fails WP:COMPANY. So long as a page about a company has "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources" it meets the notability guidelines. I think there's a very strong case to be made that notability has already been established based on the existing guidelines. If, however, notability has not been established for an article about Shadow Inc. to remain, then the content should be moved from one page to another with a redirect left behind, not deleted. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 07:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: 10YT is a self-fulfilling directive; it won't pass the test if it's deleted and it will if not deleted. Additionally, this topic is important enough as stand-alone content for historical context as an example of potential corruption of integrity of process in its own right as it relates to the bigger picture of the breakdown of public trust in election integrity in general. Ekeyser (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep It's pretty clear the consensus is to keep the article. There's zero way anything else will happen. So I suggest it be speedy kept instead of waiting pointlessly for more votes that will probably also be keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW Trackinfo (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.