Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot chocolate effect

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot_chocolate_effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Not every topic covered in an academic journal is wiki worthy. Witness the IgNoble awards. They are set up specifically for studies that were done in all earnestness and only when the world at large sees the results does anyone realize it is ludicrus. This topic has little application to most people. Postcard Cathy 14:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason is given for the delete except that it has "little application to most people". That's certainly not a valid reason. And the comparison to the IgNoble awards is ludicrous. StAnselm 13:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's not ludicrous at all, unlike the nominator's spelling of ludicrous. Nick mallory 13:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without making any comment on this article, it's highly inappropriate to make a personal remark like that. Spelling errors are not uncommon, and making fun of somebody for a simple mistake presents an uncivil attitude. FrozenPurpleCube 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its one teacher's imaginative name for a simple but clever classroom experiment, published once as a note in the principal journal for physics teachers. A good example of why we request two sources. DGG 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's an interesting effect that people of a scientific turn of mind commonly want explained. It crops up in science Q&A columns such as New Scientist blog, Society for Amateur Scientists, and physics demos e.g. [1]. Tearlach 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional keep: if the sources Tearlach mentioned are added and the article is wikified, I think it's not really necessary to delete this article. --Tinctorius 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've been trying and can't come up with one, but can anyone think of a more broad topic this might fall under? Or similar phenomena? It just seems to me this should be an example of something more general, could be wrong though. Someguy1221 08:42, 4 May 2007 (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.