Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Football


 * 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

All Football

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Lots of references but notability isn't inherited. Sponsoring awards that are won by the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo doesn't translate to notability of the product/company. Becoming a sponsor similarly doesn't translate as per WP:NOTINHERIT. Mentions-in-passing such as the DailyMail reference are not in-depth and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic fails the test of notability in its own right and fails GNG and NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  21:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. 10 million+ downloads on Android. I haven't looked at any of the refs, maybe they aren't good, but those numbers are very big. Szzuk (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Download numbers do not equal a reliable source, and can easily be gamed, so mean nothing objectively. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this strictly promotional text, trying to pass as encyclopaedic material. The sources are almost all self-referential, primary, or embarassingly adulatory. Some (e.g. this) are not even related to the subject of the article, an article created by a crypto-currency-article-pushing, monopurpose account, to boot. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2018 (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.