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)[reply]

Fooya

[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)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 22:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@SVTCobra: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete Per my source analysis based on the article reversion pre-revert:

Extended content

1. Dead

2. Non-independent, published by the developer

3. Dead

4. Non-independent, BSP provided the mobile game intervention and technical support and edited the manuscript and from the COI Coauthor BSP is the founder and CEO of FriendsLearn, the company that produced the mobile game used in this study

5. Same as 4

6. Same as 4

7. The coverage amounts to a line in a table and pasing mentions

8. Same as 4

9. Same as 4

10. Doesn't seem to have intellectual independence

11. Trivial

12. Dead

13. Not reliable & independent

14. Coverage is based off the non-independent study noted in 4

15. See 14

16. Same as 4

17. Passing coverage

18. No coverage

19. Written by the CEO and founder of the developer

20. Possibly could count, but I cannot find the full study anywhere to validate independence

21. No intellectual independence

22. Dead

23. Dead

24. Dup of 20

25. No significant coverage

26. Not significant

27. Dead

28. Trivial/PR

29. Seems trivial

30. Dead

31. Dead

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)[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.