Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axino


 * 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 per WP:SNOW and nominator's change to keep. ---J.S (T/C) 00:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Axino

 * — (View AfD)

We can't have an article which is two lines long in Wikipedia. I nominate this article to be merged and redirected with other articles or be expanded or else, we will have to delete it. There is no references, citations nor external links. Also, we can transwiki this article to Wiktionary Meno25 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a useful stub. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 04:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. While theoretically (no pun intended) a useful stub, this is an unobserved particle that is related to another unobserved particle through an unobserved relationship, despite all of that being predicted by supersymmetry theory.  I'm uncertain how much we can expand this stub; I do not know that many (any?) of the significant properties of an axino are defined by the extant mathematics ... and the current content of this article is duplicated within the longer superpartner.  However, if I'm wrong, and there's more to say, please read my comment as keep, instead. Serpent&#39;s Choice 05:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Did my own homework, changed my mind.  There have been entire papers discussing the potential properties of the axino based on differing supersymmetry model postulates.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that, while still very much a stub, I've made this somewhat better than a 2-line substub, and added some refs. Serpent&#39;s Choice 13:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Why can't we have an article that is two lines long? Size isn't a factor for an article or subjects inclusion and there are no policies that say they have to be so long, that's why they get labelled stubs. If we couldn't have anything that short then most articles would never appear and grow. Ben W Bell   talk  08:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: A short article can be very useful. If I am looking for information on the subject in question, it is better that it is all available in a single article. Dr bab, 14:04, 20 December 2006 (CET).
 * Keep Small light article for small light particle. Has references. Edison 15:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Stub is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the nominator. I must say that the article is very good now as can be seen here. Therefore I change my vote to Keep. The article now is a good stub.--Meno25 00:10, 21 December 2006 (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.