Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barometer question

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barometer question

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

I don't see how this is notable, it seems like an essay. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced original essay, and an orphan article to boot. What is one gonna do, make this a "See Also" under barometer??? Carrite (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If referenced, I think it could be merged into Barometer. Otherwise, it's an unreferenced essay-type article. Nolelover 21:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As East of Borschov has totally rewritten the article. Nolelover 19:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: needs cleanup but this is a famous question (I've heard of it before in several contexts) and really not mergeable with the main article on "barometer" because that ought to concern the standard use of the barometer to measure pressure, and this article is concerned with non-standard ways (e.g. the "Bohr method"). Usually I'm not a big fan of "in popular culture" trivia, but I think in this case, the named examples (which probably deserve to be treated as awfully formatted references) do prove that this article is describing a phenomenon notable in its own right. TheGrappler (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an urban myth, but one that some sources (Snopes quotes The Readers Digest from 1958) suggest it's been in circulation for 50 years making it a notable urban myth (assuming such a thing is possible). Definitely not capable of merging into Barometer as it has nothing to do with barometers paradoxically. It needs to be written as a description of an urban myth and referenced accordingly (i.e., to where the myth appeared or was repeated) rather than referenced to the mythical source. That is, you're never going to find a reference to Bohr actually being the student in question because it's a myth. QU ^TalkQu 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I rewrote the article (sort of) and removed the aforementioned "1958 Readers' Digest" link. This is something that needs hard reference to the original source; if not, it's as reals as the Niels Bohr story. Not a blog, not a snopes, the real Readers Digest if it ever existed. So far I've located a 1969 publication; there's mention of a 1961 book which I didn't see myself. Old, but not quite. East of Borschov 11:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here' a source from 1959 [1]. I'd rather not put it in article yet; need more assurance that this scanned paper has been correctly dated. East of Borschov 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. Falls under category AYFKMWTBS? Single reference is to a work of fiction -- a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live. Really? I mean, a fictional reference? Really? AYFKM? Burn it in a fire. Soon. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very famous geek question, and legend, and has a long and widespread history (as the fact that SNL picks up decade later on a Reader's Digest story tends to show). It's got the same sort of presence within a vocation (this one being science and scientific creativity) as The Aristocrats (joke) has among comedians. Nightspore (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Famous science question which predates SNL by decades. Edison (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does every old quip, query, or anecdote merit a Wikipedia page then??? Just because a joke is old doesn't make it worthy of encyclopedic coverage, does it? —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.

It's not a joke. I was asked this Q once. The interrogator was a well-known inventor of pressure sensors and collected answers to the Barometer Question just for fun. She usually meant mercury barometers, which ruled out many "just toss it" options. The infamous Manhole question which is part of Manhole (a very short start-class article) is not a joke either. keep. East of Borschov 12:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: part of Manhole cover. East of Borschov 14:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second option: rename to Angels on a Pin, keep original title as a redirect. East of Borschov 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=D Nolelover 16:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list of references that has been added to the article (presumably as a result of this AfD) demonstrates pretty effectively that it's an encyclopaedic topic, and provide enough of a basis to improve the article. --ais523 18:16, 28 September 2010 (U T C)

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.