Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bimoment (2nd nomination)

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. The sources, the sequence of comments, gives a strong view of consensus towards keep. Wifione ^Message 04:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bimoment

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

I find nothing significant about this topic, nor do I see how it could ever be more than a dicdef. Last AFD appears to have been non-admin closed improperly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a dictionary definition but without a clear definition of the term involved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The article has been changed since my previous recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this stub does nothing beyond giving the context of the word. Neither of the references gives enough information to expand the stub. No prejudice against recreation of the article by someone who understands what it means and can give useful sourced content, but the present article is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 07:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is obviously notable, and i disagree with Ten Pound Hammer and think that it can easily be expanded far beyond a dicdef. What's wrong with a one sentence stub which gives all the most essential information to the reader, until it is grown upon? I can honestly not see what the problem is.....--Coin945 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the last AfD was properly closed, since nobody prfesent agreed with the nominator. The very large number of uses ofthe word in G books shows that an article can be written. The nom seems to think otherwise, but there's no indication he has tried to find sources or expand the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I wrote the last time, "This is a valid stub, and there is no reason to assume that it could not be expanded beyond a definition." —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (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.