Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortune Foo


 * 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. The consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish that the subject is notable. Mz7 (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Fortune Foo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent reliable sources to evidence notability. Youtube is not a reliable source. See also WP:HOWTO. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It based of that game from FaFaFa Slots. Lucy Desi (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - nothing to commend this at all. Wholly unsourced . Hoax ? If there had been a suitable category this would be a speedy candidate.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - wholly unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * delete I can find no reliable sources with any content. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe Wikipedia actually notes slot machine games, as there is a well-populated category for them Category:Slot machines. There are hundreds of references to this specific game - Fortune Foo - on Google search, but they are almost entirely to promote the use of the game for gambling purposes. I do not have the patience nor the time to continue searching on Google for an article buried in the competition by gaming websites for customers, to locate applicable references for the subject, but maybe someone else will be able to do that. I am not a fan of gaming or gambling but more knowledge for the world is more useful than the current state of less knowledge for the world. So I argue on behalf of keeping the article. Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2017 (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.