Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coby Browser


 * 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. SNOW delete, and I will salt to protect against re-creation.  DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Coby Browser

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still fails notability. No substantial encyclopaedic content. Previously deleted 3 times for various reasons. Rather than fuss over correct criteria, I thought I'd bring it here and get consensus, so we can just G4 any recreations until it's worthy. Adam9007 (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt as WP:NOTADVERTISING, the article creator is most likely the maker of this software, a gsearch of Turboprogramming brings up this: listing the website as  http://turboprogramming.blogspot.com which in turn brings up this Arda Çebi - Blog who is stated in the article as the software developer. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt now please, this has been deleted three times and this is simply yet another blatant attempt of advertising. SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Article lacks sources (and coverage - nearly no Google hits!), has promotional language and contains some weird phrases (maybe only weak English language skills?). Pavlor (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt apart from the article reading like an advertisement, I can't even find unreliable sources, let alone reliable ones - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt yet another iteration of this blatant advertising.  I have trouble imagining this will meet WP:NSOFT any time soon, and as this is the fourth attempt at creating the article, I don't think the author is getting the point.  PGWG (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2016 (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.