Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elymentz


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Elymentz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article, all the sources seem to be also promotional. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  J  947 ( c ) (m)   04:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * KEEP I didn't find any reason for deletionAmirdaeii (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the above editor was blocked as a part of a sock farm. -- HighKing ++ 14:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like a WP:PAID job. Lots of references, but are any of them reliable? Is there any justification for that page move gimmick, I mean other than trying to avoid the scrutiny of NPP by a hireling who knew his work wouldn't stand up to any real review and wanted to postpone deletion until the check cleared? Furrykiller (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP and WP:SPIP. Suspicious article history too. -- HighKing ++ 14:57, 19 October 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.