Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fooya


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fooya

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

This is an obvious advertisement for an App. I am somewhat unsure of the notability, however, some of the sources are misrepresented and at least one led me to a malicious website. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If something is an "obvious" advertisement it is eligible for WP:G11 so I suggest putting a speedy deletion nomination on it if you are certain it's spam or adjusting your rationale to say it is not obvious. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's my dilemma. There are some legitimate sources, but the article is written as an advertisement. If it was the work of a single editor, I'd put it for G11. If notability was obvious, I'd request it be cleaned up. It's not naked spam, so no, I am not convinced I should change my wording. --SVTCobra 23:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also note that User:Chippadum who created the article might have undisclosed COI or paid editing given that it had promotional language even when it was first made. In any event, I believe G11 still applies even when a subject is notable, yet the entire article reads like an ad. No article is preferable to a blatant advertisement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. (I arrived at this article through a winding road which took me through Commons but my starting point was WP:COIN in a discussion about an unrelated article.) You might be right about G11 and if you are sure, you can do it. I prefer the longer process. --SVTCobra 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I reverted the article to an earlier version with less promotional content. I'll look at notability a bit later. Jumpytoo Talk 23:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Other than the articles based on press releases, I see no coverage of Fooya by secondary sources. Even going to the Fooya website and following the links they supplied didn't reveal any significant secondary coverage. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per my source analysis based on the article reversion pre-revert:


 * TL;DR: Only source 20 could be significant coverage, conditional on being able to view the full study for an independence check. Jumpytoo Talk 05:54, 15 February 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.