Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kooboo (2nd nomination)

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kooboo[edit]

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

I would've frankly speedied or PRODed, but because chances are there's no symmetrical contents, here we are again; all sources are essentially both PR and their own websites and my own searches found this also, PR and their own websites; none of that actually amounts to substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- typical advertorial / product brochure / corporate web site content, much of it uncited or self-cited. 3rd party coverage is insufficient to meet GNG and sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs third-party sources in a big way. A Train^talk 11:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advert. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:30, 14 August 2016 (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.