Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FeetFinder

FeetFinder

[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)

Does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. No significant coverage, and the two sources cited in the article appear to be based on press releases. – notwally (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and the article has poor footnotes (ducks 🍅s). Nate • (chatter) 19:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find are "you can make money!" sites - these promote rather dubious earnings fads. There's nothing serious out there. This was clearly an attempt at promotion. Lamona (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable for multiple events. Having references on New York Post, Daily Hive, Mid-Day, MSN and LADbible Group which are generally reliable resources. Aalam Ara (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aalam Ara, in what sense are any of those "generally reliable sources"? Only NYP is listed on WP:RSP and it is not generally reliable. The Mid-Day article is labeled as an advertisement, and the MSN article is syndicated content from "Decan Times". The only discussion about LADBible on RSN describes it as low-quality clickbait [1]. There are no discussions about Daily Hive, although the cited article's author byline is "National Trending Staff", which looks to be largely clickbait-style articles, and the Wikipedia page for the outlet states: "Prior to its 2016 rebranding as Daily Hive, the Vancity Buzz site was the subject of numerous criticisms and controversies. Notable accusations included unethical journalism practices, plagiarism, and fearmongering." – notwally (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Deccan Times died in 1960 and the 'current version' is SEO pink slime trading off a dead trademark. It should absolutely not be used as a source. Nate • (chatter) 17:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy. I would suggest the article author do some work on their ability to identify questionable sources if I expect to be listened to, but I don't, really. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]