Deletion of Apps to analyse COVID-19 sounds

Comment: The sources in the article and mentioned above do not suffice for . Pre-prints are not sufficiently reliable; this covers all the current sources in the article. To address the sources mentioned above by {{re|Pontificalibus}} 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Meets  per https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52215290, https://www.ft.com/content/877b8752-6847-11ea-a6ac-9122541af204, https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcwebertobias/2020/05/05/ai-and-medical-diagnostics-can-a-smartphone-app-detect-covid-19-from-speech-or-a-cough/#13efad005436 etc. I don't see a valid delete rationale
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per nom.  Far too much of a chance to use  and a  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SPAM)

Comment: The new sources seem okay but not ideal; I think we are still borderline on . Of the four news articles listed above: The Next Web is discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_250#About_The_Next_Web; 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)