Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ToTok (app)


 * 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 keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm   (talk)  14:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

ToTok (app)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is based on a single news report from The New York Times that says the app is a spy tool based on unnamed sources, the article doesn't discuss anything else regarding the app itself like other similar apps articles like WeChat, Telegram (software), WhatsApp...etc UA3 (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. UA3 (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, as creator. Incompleteness is not a reason for deletion, as it can be fixed by adding the missing information to the article if there are reliable sources for it. However, in my view, such aspects as the list of features and supported platforms are a low priority for this article: they are likely mostly the same as similar apps. What's a matter of public interest about this app is its apparent nature as spyware, which is sourced to one of the most reliable media organizations in the world. Insofar as notability is a concern, the article cites two other sources unrelated to the NYT article that provide substantial coverage about the app.  Sandstein   10:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with what Sandstein said.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 12:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've added BBC coverage published today, and a bit of info I noted there. The app and its withdrawal from the Google and Apple app stores is attracting news coverage in several countries, making it notable. The article was already no longer exclusively based on the NYT article when I found it. Comparisons to other apps are not relevant to notability unless reliable sources start emphasizing them, so I see no reason failing to cover them in the article is a bad thing, much less makes the article less worth keeping. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. A google news search quickly reveals that this app has become a global news story. I notice the Chicago Tribune, BBC and Wired News all feature reports about ToTok. Knobbly talk 22:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per widespread press coverage. Is it snowing yet? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete most news reports just rephrased what The New York Times reported and there is no evidence showing the privacy violation done by ToTok. In fact, accroding to BBC News, security firm Objective-See decrypted ToTok app and found no backdoors, no malware, and no exploits in the app. This is the truth. Don't be used by the media. Jackie Peterson (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Jackie Peterson (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.
 * Objective-See (Patrick Wardle) is actually the security researcher that did the analysis for the New York Times. And, an app doesn't need to have backdoors, malware or exploits to be a surveillance tool. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. All discussion is based on a piece of single news, how can we know it is the truth or a fake news? As per Khaleej Times, ToTok unavailability is a 'technical issue' and they had engaged with Apple and Google to fix the issue. I realise that all negative news were coming from the US. Maybe it is just a strategy against UAE? So I think this should be deleted as we cannot make sure the news said the truth.Yoyo Mina (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)  — Yoyo Mina (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jackie Peterson (talk • contribs).
 * Just in case it is not noticed, and  are some of the most obvious socks I've seen at AfD, and should be dealt with by the closing admin.   Sandstein   10:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because we have different opinions and you're insulting me and calling for admins to take me down? You guys are good at this, aren't you? Jackie Peterson (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Sandstein, actually my concern is that we are not sure The New York Times said the truth, so the part of "Surveillance tool reports" may not suitable? As a Wiki page, we should try to keep the info authenticity.  Hope you can consider this.Yoyo Mina (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." The article isn't saying ToTok is a surveillance tool, it's merely stating that that's what the New York Times (and other sources) said. ...Anyway, neutrality isn't a valid reason for article deletion. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Like other popular apps, this app also got its importance on a region, So it need to an interest to encyclopedic searchers --Qowa (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meet notability criteria. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – has been covered in-depth by reliable news sources such as the New York Times and BBC, clearly meets WP:GNG. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep,Espionage claims are backed by both NYT reporters and US government officials. Enough basis to warrant claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.205.90.107 (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DeleteNYT's source is not revealed. Before the truth is disclosed, we should make Wikipedia stand aside to avoid misleading others.Marcshi 1988 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)   — Marcshi 1988 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jackie Peterson (talk • contribs).
 * Delete No evidence can back up NYT reporters' claims. To talk about an app which has made my life way much easier in this untruthful way makes me hightly doubt the authenticity. So I would suggest to delete it until the truth comes out. Truth is worth waiting. FarregHo (talk) 12:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC) — FarregHo (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jackie Peterson (talk • contribs).


 * 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.