Deletion of Shadow Inc.

Comment: I don't have a general notability concern. I do think  and  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  potential, given what I've been seeing at Tara McGowan over the last 24 hours, and this page will take some serious  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:10YT||WP:ATTACK||WP:NPOV)

Comment: for now, with no prejudice to renomination in a six months or a year if the coverage goes away.  I see the  point, but I'd rather give this one time to see if it goes away.  At worst, redirect to 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses#Delay in final results where it is mention, but I would prefer keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS, coverage seems trivial, in passing and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: A keeper if I ever saw one.  Have you seen the s it includes?  How anyone could argue for deletion is just beyond me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: If this is  then we cannot have a single article from a topic in which interest was generated by a current event. , not a chance in hell this is getting deleted, in one day it is already approaching 5k views https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Shadow_Inc.- 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:SNOW)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY)

Comment: for now per . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:RAPID)