Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEI viral inactivant

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. John254 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BEI viral inactivant[edit]

Delete insufficient context to know what this is, no sources to indicate any notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Do you like to make a habit of trying to get new pages deleted? Please allow for ORGANIC EXPANSION. -- Librarianofages (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Xyr contention in the nomination, if you read it, was that there was no context to permit such expansion, since it wasn't obvious what the subject even was. Please do not berate editors for not being able to determine context from an article that is one sentence long and that (still) doesn't even give the actual name of the subject or any sources that might have given a clue as to how the article could be expanded. Uncle G (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Binary-ethylenimine or Binary-ethylenimine, which seems to be its full name. "BEI viral inactivant" gets no hits besides this WP page, but this is apparently an abbreviation for Binary-eth...argh, don't make me spell it again... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just keep a redirect on the current page and create new article for full name. -- Librarianofages (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which is exactly what I meant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but as Binary ethylenimine per Ten Pound Hammer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Ross (talk • contribs) 17:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly needs more context and expansion, but seems verifiable and sufficiently notable based on its ghits. --Lockley (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (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.