Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oobleck


 * 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. That seems to be the rough consensus so far. Further discussions about merging can be discussed on the talk pages. –MuZemike 00:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oobleck

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Dr. Seuss' use of the term is already covered in Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The rest of the article is essentially a how-to guide, and Wikipedia is not a cookbook or instruction manual. Stonemason89 (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The only notable definition is already found at that article. Tavix | Talk  17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge (see below) Weak keep . We need some sort of article covering the substances known variously as Oobleck and Glurch (and goop and gloop) which are regularly used as demonstration material in all levels of education (from primary to post-secondary). There are lots of .edu sources available, which should provide the necessary references. However, the substances themselves should be the primary topic matter of this article, with only an explanatory note about the Seussian inspiration (linking to the Bartholomew article for details). It probably needs a more encompassing (and accurate) title, too, to properly cover these various substances; I'm not sure what that title would be, and I don't have the expertise to do the overhaul required. I'll leave a note at the chemistry project, to see if anyone there has time/ideas for input. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —-- Quiddity (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The discussion of the properties of the substance can be deal with at Non-Newtonian_fluid. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That might work, if the content at Non-Newtonian_fluid can be improved to encompass oobleck and glurch. Then add a hatnote at Bartholomew and the Oobleck pointing readers to the other link, if they're looking for the substance itself. I'll add merge tags, to get more input. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think there's enough coverage of the real-life substance (a common science lesson in schools) to warrant a stub. See this book in particular, along with its appearance as a class project in numerous others.  Them  From  Space  20:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bartholomew_and_the_Oobleck. --EEMIV (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our coverage of popular culture issues is one point which marks Wikipedia out from more traditional encyclopedias, so I don't think we should destroy that bit of competitive advantage. Why shouldn't some kid type  and get an article about this fictitious substance? An article that tells him or her that it is fictitious, that it doesn't exist outside of books, but telling them the properties it's supposed to have according to the books... (hell, I can think of a couple of mainsteam chemistry articles we do that for: 1 2!) Physchim62 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The substance is not fictitious. You can make it in your kitchen (you should! it's fun and educational. 2-parts corn starch and 1-part water). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oobleck is not fictional! The name is given to a simple but effective science experiment especially suited for children. It is part of the category Category:Chemistry classroom experiments where you will find experiments with other silly names like the barking dog reaction. Do you really want kids redirected to Non-Newtonian_fluid ? The real substance should preside over its fictional origins though V8rik (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Everybody's talking past each other. This is a real substance, that's really made in thousands upon thousands of middle school, high school and university chemistry labs every year. Obviously notable. Its fictional namesake is probably notable as well, and obviously deserves discussion in this article, but this is the real thing.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the above comments note, the term is used for a real substance. It is taken from the Dr. Seuss book but is not the same thing as the original reference; the article should be separate.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the four above posts. Not a 'how-to' - that's a definition. (I grew up without hearing of Dr Seuss and wish that I had encountered those books back then.) Peridon (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I first nominated this article for AFD, it was a how-to. You might want to check the archives. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge the two sections into Bartholomew and the Oobleck and Non-Newtonian fluid respectively (although I think the relevant information is already present there), and replace by a disambiguation page, as in the box. The two different uses of the word "Oobleck" have nothing in common to justify this article. -- Radagast 3  (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see someone else has boldly done a merge. Consequently, I've boldly implemented this suggestion. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per Radagast. (Disambiguation pages are generally not used for just 2 items, but it makes sense in this case as neither target is an exact match). I (or anyone) should try to find some reliable sources for Glurch (currently a redirect to oobleck) which is a separate substance. It should also be merged to Non-Newtonian fluid. (Done) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2010 (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.