Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobble Keyboard App

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. J04n(talk page) 14:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobble Keyboard App

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable app. No significant coverage in reliable sources, just advertorial spam and the odd mention in in-bubble trade magazines.

The article was created by a paid editor and has been edited by multiple paid editors and SPAs. It was moved out of draftspace twice, circumventing AfC, in violation of WP:PAY. A clear misuse of Wikipedia for promotion. – Joe (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPROMO and no significant independent coverage. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Product fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wouldn't the subject pass WP:ORGDEPTH? Economics times, business standard, financial express, DNA - all major Indian publications have a full feature on it not mere mentions. It is the second most used indic keyboard in India after Google.

Can this article be improved? (WP:PAID - I have been paid to edit this article so I wanted to understand the possibilities) Wikilover2604 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikilover2604: It would help forward the discussion if you linked to the articles you are referencing. – Joe (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails GNG. I could not find any independent references from the press (ones that don't rely on quotations from the company or its representatives) or has independent analysis or opinion. All others are are Primary references or PR announcements. As Joe Roe has stated it is advertorial spam Hagennos (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there is coverage, Hagennos rightly points out that it is not independent. In addition, the article is simply a promotional brochure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 25 December 2017 (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.