Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covid Act Now

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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covid Act Now

[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)

Software modeling for Covid-19. It is admirable, but not notable enough for an article. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done some research, and the Model seems to be of interest in the academic community, and has received some significant coverage in the academia. The model received in-depth evaluation and scientific analysis in an article in the Verge, which is generally considered a reliable source in the fields of technology and science. Scholars have also cited data extracted from Covid Act Now for scientific analysis in published journal articles: 1 2. Passes WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. --Dps04 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dps04, it actually fails WP:WEBCRIT. Merely giving stats from a software is trivial mention. There are no indepth mentions. A cursory article is the most there is on the topic itself. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MistyGraceWhite: In addition to giving stats, there was an entire paragraph describing the COVID Act Now website in the research article I cited above (p.6). Similarly, there was an entire section in the Verge article describing and evaluating the model. Also check these sources where the model is studied in depth: another research article, reporting from USA today, etc. Looks much more than a trivial mention to me. --Dps04 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Many media outlets have reported regarding the software model and many organizations use it for decision making. --Netha (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no sense in dedicating a page for every web initiative just because it concerns an ongoing pandemic. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lack of WP:BEFORE. Sources shown by Dps prove this an easy pass. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the reasons given above, it has been the subject of political controversy, as shown by the mention in the Federalist article cited in the article. The NPOV perspective that Wikipedia can bring to such a political topic of great practical import, can be very valuable. -greenrd (talk) 17:32, 8 May 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.