Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DarwinHealth

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DarwinHealth

[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)

American biomedical company fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and basically WP:NOTCRUNCHBASE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Biology, Medicine, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets
WP:GNG. This article in Science and this article in The Economist are independent and very in-depth. It is a major research organization that has developed algorithms — potentially capable of cracking cancer's code, as covered in WSJ. Being a research organization, most of its coverage is in academia. A search on Google Scholar brings an extensive coverage about DarwinHealth. Sklerk (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: The Science article cited by
WP:NCORP is just met by the sources given. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I'm unconvinced by the rationale presented so far. The first editor to keep is the author of the article, which, while it does not invalidate their submission, I do consider there to be a potential bias. I note they state GNG is met by listing a bunch of references. I disagree that they constitute extensive coverage. Most are passing references. This organization does good work, clearly. However the "coverage" tends to merely mention the research undertaken rather than in-depth information about the organization itself. I do not see the sustained, significant, in-depth coverage required by our subject-specific notability guideline for corporations and organizations. Just my view, though. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Rather than having in-depth details about the organisation, the "coverage" usually consists of mentioning the research that was done. I fail to see the consistent, noteworthy coverage to meet subject-specific notability guideline for businesses and organisations demands. Fails NCORP. 2409:40F3:A:3510:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you've commented here at random without actually reading the article or the comments above, where in-depth sources have been shared. 154.21.186.89 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed. Some in-depth coverage already reviewed by WeirdNAnnoyed and additional coverage when I did a proper
WP:BEFORE. Personalized Drug Screening for Functional Tumor Profiling by Victoria El-Khoury, Tatiana Michel, Hichul Kim, Yong-Jun Kwon (published in 2022) is independent of the subject and covers the organization directly and in-depth. 154.21.186.89 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: per sources found by WeirdNAnnoyed. I'm surprised Andrea Califano doesn't have an article. // Timothy :: talk 00:06, 1 December 2023 (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.