Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bimoment


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  03:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Bimoment

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pretty much more of the same (This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, incase the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself). Apparently the only thing wrong with this article is that it is a "dictionary definition", not because of it lacking in notibility. Thoughts? --Coin945 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yes, I agree that the problem is only with the current situation. There are 37,000 google books results for bimoment, including  and, both of which seem like substantial coverage, and the article could probably be expanded pretty easily. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a valid stub, and there is no reason to assume that it could not be expanded beyond a definition. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi. I'm the one who proposed the article for deletion originally, and yes, it was not based on notability but on WP:NOT. If the article is indeed expanded, that would eliminate that concern. I'll go ahead and add a WP:NOT tag for now, in anticipation of the article being retained for further development. --DGaw (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. NOTDICTIONARY is not a reason to delete an article that is admitted to be capable of expansion beyond a dictionary definition. James500 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2011 (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.