Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balbis

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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balbis[edit]

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

Deprodded since some sources supported it as a structure in Greek racing. However, only one source supports it in the geometric sense. I can find no other sources supporting this as a defined shape, and I see no way to make it more than a dicdef even if it were about the Greek racing structure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. It seems quite clear that a balbis is a structure in Greek racing and that there is a signficiant literature on the subject. The sources I found in a couple of minutes on Google Books are here: Miller (2004) [1] mentions it on 25 pages, Valavanēs (1999) [2] on 82 pages, Miller et al (2001) [3] on 35 pages. It is clear that there is ample material here alone to write an article and Google Books for "balbis hysplex" yields over 200 likely sources. The application to the geometrical H-shape is apparently found only in the book by Francis (1971) and so should not be the principal focus of the article. However all of this can be fixed by normal editing. Deltahedron (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using AFD as cleanup at all. I'm saying that I don't think even rewriting it to be about the Greek thingy would be useful, as even doing so wouldn't make it any more than a WP:DICDEF. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to suggest that it is impossible to write anything beyond a dictionary definition of an object about which so much has been written in the academic literature. Deltahedron (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds of Deltahedron. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, sources show notability. Diego (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2013 (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.