Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CQMA, Mini-CQMA and CQN

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 Keep. — Scientizzle 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QMA, Mini-QMA and HPQN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- A complete encyclopedia would provide full coverage of the range of coaxial connectors. This doesn't strike me as an advert or anything else that should be readily deleted. -- Atlant (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- per Atlant; WP is filled with technical writing about technical topics; I can find multiple vendors for these connectors in a quick search. --- tqbf 21:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as G11 spam. No sources in article, and none found in a search of Google News Archive. We are not a catalog of internal cell phone electronics. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with QLS connector. One article on the various SMA replacements would avoid the appearance of advertising a particular solution.--agr (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I originally wrote the content for the QMA and QN connector sub-category and as a result of edits that were made to that page and some research on my own part believe that other quick locking connectors also deserved recognition to avoid the appearance that there is in fact only one solution rather than many. Also, SMA and N connectors (quick lock or threaded) are very important to the RF and Microwave industry, and have nothing to do with internal cell phone electronics. -- Jamusi (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above points. Highly encyclopedic. --Sharkface217 —Preceding comment was added at 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable to me. I've wikified the article and added a couple of easily-found sources.  —SMALLJIM  13:55, 2 January 2008 (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.