Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voatz

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 speedy withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voatz[edit]

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

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

notability not established, only in-depth coverage from reputable media like WSJ, Vox, Fortune and CNN is related to the hacking incident, which shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEWS. The WSJ source doesn't even mention Voatz, as far as I can see. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this one might actually be slightly notable (though I might be misremembering the extensive coverage in crypto sources by people like me). I'll see what I can dig up - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though the present article is terrible, and is in desperate need of a rewrite. Voatz is terrible, but their awfulness has been noted in detail for a few years now - a quick google finds Bloomberg (Iowa fail) (security concerns), NYT (security fail, DHS warning), Vanity Fair ("The Theranos of voting"), WSJ (general article). So I think they're notably awful, and we have the sources to write a good article on the topic. Just not the present article - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the points and sources raised by David Gerard are convincing. It does not seem to be just one incident, and there is plenty of coverage as pointed out, so meets GNG. There seems to be a problem of undue weight in the article, but there does not seem to be a policy supporting that this constitutes a reason to delete. Mathias (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2020 (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.