Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octadecimal 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 speedy delete and salt per G12 by Jimfbleak. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octadecimal Classification

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

Apparent COI editor seems to be promoting their own work. The references are dubious. This same article was created twice before as a copyvio of the author's own web site here. The content has since been removed from the COI editor's website, but may still be a copyvio. No evidence of this subject being notable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 01:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, apparent COI and, IMHO, original research too failing GNG. Me too I've found the same blog. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: original research, self-promotion, and in no sense an encyclopedia article, but rather an essay. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have trouble even understanding what this is about, at first I figured it be a numbering system, then a library system, now I have absolutely no clue. IF this is a topic we should have an article on, it needs some massive TNT. Charmlet (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2013 (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.