Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphnet


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  14:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Graphnet

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No reliabler sources provided to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG Bash7oven (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is almost weekly coverage in Digital Health and substantial analysis in the Financial Times. Rathfelder (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Software,  and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Deletenot enough independent reliable coverage for WP:NCORP. However it looks not so bad and there is a good chance it could be updated with better RS --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The FT is both independent and detailed and its a significant player in the NHS. Bigwig7 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep the Financial Times website is a reliable source to prove WP:GNG. Other sources also look mostly reliable. 2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, sourcing seems to just scrape over the line. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2022 (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.