Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body Adiposity Index

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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Body Adiposity Index[edit]

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

While "Body Adiposity Index" is a real thing, as confirmed by a Google search, the article is written as a vanity piece, with references to people who seem to have no significant connection to the subject. Lampman (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone should bother to try save the article, here's a good start:[1]. Lampman (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I bothered, but I'm a layman. Therefore I added deletion sorting. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not CLEANUP: If it can be salvaged by editing (and it looks like a good start has been made in that direction, by removing the oddities), then you should withdraw the nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term finds some use in scientific writing per Google Scholar. It is currently a stub, not a vanity piece, and as such there is no reason to delete it - since it does seem to be a concept that is being used in the field. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Why should we delete useful articles? I wanted to know what BAI was, and luckily there was an article on it. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia was the first place I looked when I wanted to know how to calculate BAI. It would have been disappointing had this page not been there. --catslash (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2011 (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.