Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eubiotics


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 01:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Eubiotics
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary WWGB (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article at present may only be a dictionary definition, but there is clear scope for it to grow beyond this, so per WP:DELETION we should allow the article to be fixed by editing rather than deleting it. JulesH (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. While reads like a non-notable neologism of a rather vague and promotional sounding word, Google Scholar retrieves more than 90 hits.  The article has potential for expansion.  I added the missing references tag. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a weak start but subject experts could certainly expand on the concept. Google shows up a number of valid references.- Ipigott (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree on the potential, although I think it might end up being a spam magnet. §FreeRangeFrog 19:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - If it is a separate type of thing than Probiotic and seems significant enough to merit its own article for near-future expansion. Valley2 city ‽ 20:02, 3 February 2009 (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.