Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal classification


 * 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. Thanks everyone for participating. :) Please assume good faith with my decision. If you believe this article was deleted without good reason, please request undeletion at deletion request, not my talk page. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Universal classification

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Incomprehensible stub about the work of a certain A.A. Shpackov. Of the two references, I can't find the second in GScholar (even after correcting the typos), while the former has only a single (self-)citation, and it looks like it's a letter to the editor of JASIST rather than a peer-reviewed article. I.e., non-notable. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nominator could not be clearer. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete per nom. Kolbasz (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks to be a scheme that has not been noted as I can find no coverage about it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2014 (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.