Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contraflexure

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 06:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contraflexure[edit]

Appears to be a DicDef. Contested prod, so here for all to see... Deizio 01:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw happily given response. Look forward to seeing this expanded. Deizio 15:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef. Brian G. Crawford 01:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like it could be turned into a useful article. Royboy crashfan 01:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly good stub. Seano1 02:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, goes beyond dicdif and attempts to explain role concept plays in engineering. Monicasdude 06:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a tecnhical stub.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely not a dicdef. It is a technology stub and can be expanded and improved much further. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Terence Ong. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting stuff. Nigelthefish 14:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moe ε 02:05, 1 April 2006 (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.