Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safevote

Safevote

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I am finding some independent news stories that at least talk about this business, the current text about a company with proprietary voting technology and worldwide online election experience qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the text is promotional in tone, but sources like [1], [2], [3], and [4] seem to establish notability. As an alternative to deletion, we could also merge to Electronic voting. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. None of these reference actually make reference to anything notable. Being mentioned in something else notable doesn't seem to meet the standard. I don't even know what would be valuable to mention here. Their claims of legally binding elections would be useful in the examples of evoting article, but that's completely unsourced and moderately dubious. Electiontechnology (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– Was the above !vote based upon a basic search for sources, or just searches performed by others? Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on my review of the references posted by others as well as my own personal review. There is one source in this article for one moderately notable event, the parent company, Módulo, won a contract for electronic voting in Brazil (no mention if it is the same technology as Safevote or even what the result was). I'm not even certain these are the same organizations. The rest of the sources either briefly mention the organization exists. The current references in the article mention they exist and quotes CEO/CTO/Founder/President Ed Gerck. The article was full of unsourced or inaccurate claims. Other than just putting in links from Google search results, can someone actually give ANY evidence of what notable this organization has done? Are they even still in existence? Electiontechnology (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources:

Manjoo, Farhad (January 12, 2001). "Make Your Vote (Machine) Count". Wired Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Brandt, Andrew (January 19, 2001). "Privacy Watch: Can the Internet Save Democracy?". PC World Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) (Links to where coverage begins on page 2 of this article; click on "page 3" in the article for the rest of the coverage)

–Additionally, here's some coverage from The New York Times, not quite significant, but more than just passing mentions, which may be used to verify information:

Rich, Jennifer L. (February 26, 2001). "TECHNOLOGY; Brazilian Company Is Hacking Its Way Up". The New York Times. Retrieved March 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (Coverage begins on page 3, and continues on page 4)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has been cleaned up as of the time of this post, and more inline citations have been added: diff. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Many of the citations were not accurately supporting the claims made here. Electiontechnology (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]