Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apps to analyse COVID-19 sounds


 * 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Apps to analyse COVID-19 sounds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not read like an encyclopedic article, sources may be a violation of original research. Aasim 15:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I created the page, with reference to all the available sources, they are all arXiv preprints at this stage. I also added in the table all the known global efforts in this theme. The page seems to me of a similar style, standing and purpose to the tracking apps page that is linked from here (and from which it would be good to be linked). User:pc245 21 May 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the apps are notable and article written more like a product review rather than an encyclopedic topic. Ajf773 (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic is clearly notable - individual apps may or may not be, but this is not an article about an individual app. If you think it's not encyclopedicly written, please consider improving it.Pontificalibus 11:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Far too much of a chance to use WP:OR and a WP:SPAM magnet and a chance for unreviewed content to be added.  Creator has not helped their cause in my book by disrupting the nomination by inappropriately placed unsigned comment.  Would not object to userfication or draftication if creator promises to incline cite all content and not to attempt to circumvent AfD in any return to mainspace, using DRV if necessary.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't delete articles just because we think someone might add original research or spam to them.Pontificalibus 11:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG per, , etc. I don't see a valid delete rationale. Pontificalibus  10:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete – We are not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a valid delete rationale. It's evidently not a catalogue, it's an article about a notable topic that happens to contain a list in one section. If you feel that section is problematic, feel free to propose improvements to it.Pontificalibus 11:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't simply see this as a directory. The concept of apps analyzing the coronavirus passes GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete See no potential in creating pages for most of these apps. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you agree it’s best to have just one page that discusses all of them?--Pontificalibus 17:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  qedk ( t  愛  c ) 08:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The technique seems reasonably notable and the fact that it is novel doesn't make the page OR. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is valid list, it is referenced, and it is important and interesting. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - If I were to invent a new term, I would call articles like these Covid-cruft. It's a useless, non-notable, app genre that is too unpopular to have it's own article. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources in the article and mentioned above do not suffice for WP:GNG. Pre-prints are not sufficiently reliable; this covers all the current sources in the article. To address the sources mentioned above by the BBC sources looks okay. The Financial Times article lacks depth: it only mentions these apps in passing; the main topic is AI-aided drug development. The Forbes article is a "Contributor" article, which is more like a personal blog: it does not have the same editorial scrutiny as the rest of Forbes and is thus not particularly reliable. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are more reliable sources, if you don't like the FT and Forbes e.g., , , .Pontificalibus 06:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Several sources suggested here (but which are not yet in the article) seem to me to meet our GNG criteria. Maybe more. Incidentally, they all seem to predate this AFD nomination. So, it looks to me the topic is notable. Any original research may be removed and editorial tone may be improved if thought necessary (which I do not). Thincat (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The new sources seem okay but not ideal; I think we are still borderline on WP:GNG. Of the four news articles listed above: The Next Web is discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250; briefly, corporate sponsorships and poor editorial standards make it not particularly reliable. WGN9 and South Wales Argus seem like okay sources; for something like this major news agencies would be better than local ones. The EURACTIV article seems good. But beyond reliability, the problem with these sources is that they each only describe a single app or research effort. This would be fine if we were writing individual pages, but to discuss the general topic of "Apps to analyse COVID-19 sounds" it would be preferable to have sources that discussed the idea more generally. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Like WSJ (I can only see the intro)? Thincat (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * . Yeah, that one looks good. Reliable source and coverage of multiple apps. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Rename? This seems like a good start to an article on COVID-19 sound analysis. Any notable apps that relate to COVID-19 sound analysis techniques could be mentioned there. I don't really see how the apps could be relevant unless the techniques were, unless only one app was successful, in which case there is no need for a list. Tkondrashov (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.