Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottomless Soup Bowl Study


 * 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 delete. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Bottomless Soup Bowl Study

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

inappropriate summary of a single academic article. Possibly a class project, but not an appropriate one.  DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this doesn't seem like an appropriate article. It seems like someone is trying to promote their own work.  I vote for deletion.Hippychick (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Brian Wansink as I'm neutral with thinking it's for simple promotional use and someone may have started this for educational or encyclopedia purposes. My searches found enough results to support a move to Brian's article, here, here and here. SwisterTwister   talk  06:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets criteria for notability - referenced in several international publications. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Does not in fact meet criteria for notability when searching via the links above. Delete --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the article is interesting, but I'm torn about whether it should be deleted of kept. While it may serve to promote the subject at hand, it doesn't use a promotional tone. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 00:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator is correct that the article is inappropriately summarized but this project can have a Wikipedia article because it meets WP:GNG. This research won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2007, and as such, was covered in multiple publications.   The research even got attention outside of this prize. Because of the media coverage, and because the experiment has been discussed on its own merits away from the scientist, the article should not be deleted or merged. It should be cut. All sentences should be followed with a citation, and citations cannot go to the primary research publication.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  12:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * keep/merge I'm not really convinced that this study is worth an article of its own, but it certainly should be included in an article on the subject. I would be inclined to merge it into portion control except that at the moment the name is occupied by a disambiguation on the dubious notion that a not-all-that-well-known-band is of equal rank to the concept after which it is named. Seyasirt (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Others have not written about this.  Refer authors to Alternative outlets.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.