Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qoob Realtime Frontend Page Builder for Wordpress


 * 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. Not moving back to draftspace at this time, since it's already been rejected numerous times there. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Qoob Realtime Frontend Page Builder for Wordpress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite being declined three times at AfC, the author has elected to move this into mainspace themselves. The Wordpress plugin is totally non notable, with the provided references 1) from extremely dodgy list sites 2) of the 'I'll rub your back if you'll rub mine' kind of list websites. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Author posted a question to the helpdesk and ignored the advice. Also ignored the suggestions from the AfC reviewers, of which I am one. David. moreno 72    13:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  13:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  13:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete It could have been speedy deleted as spam per G11 Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:G11. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  00:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable software. Contains just enough description to avoid G11, but that doesn't make it pass software notability.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * delete - non-notable, all the 'refs' are trivial mentions or promotion. KylieTastic (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Move - move back to draft space to continue AfC process (if this is even a possible option) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment AFC is chronically overloaded, we don't need to add this obvious junk to the pile. It's already been declined three times for not being notable, another decline will achieve nothing but waste precious reviewer time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:29, 24 August 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.