Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Placebo button


 * 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   speedy keep. JForget 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Placebo button

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't think a button deserves it's own article under WP:N when there are so many imaginable things that could act on the placebo effect. I already moved everything to Placebo, which I think is the best place for it. Habanero-tan (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC) DO NOT KEEP. This is urban dictionary material. Has no place on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.231.78 (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 independent articles meet the criteria. 216.80.135.50 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It doesn't look to me that the placebo article adequately covers the placebo button. I don't think that the placebo buttons work by the placebo effect anyway. Placebo effect is when you get a real improvement of a real disease with sugar pills or other inactive treatment like homeopathy or whatever. That not what happens with placebo buttons so far as I can tell. The article also seems to be adequately sourced, and probably could be extended. In short, in my opinion this article has independent notability from placebo.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with a merger to placebo is that dummy thermostat controls aren't placebo buttons, that they aren't even buttons in most cases, and that what there is to say about them is really better placed (since it's how the sources place it) in the overall subject of thermal comfort.  (A quick search reveals that there's a fair amount of HVAC literature on the subject of thermal comfort that deals with locked and dummy thermostat controls, including relevant building regulations, good industry practice for such controls, psychological and energy efficiency factors that they involve, relations to other occupant-controllable items, and so forth.  It treats them from the perspective of the overall subject, though &mdash; in context and without the narrow focus on simply dummy controls alone.) Uncle G (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets multiple references that are valid. Speedy keep eligible, not merge. MECU ≈ talk 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I had never thought of the idea before but now you mention it ... &mdash; RHaworth 04:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable concept, article has valid sources. J I P  | Talk 07:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with deletion. As Wolfkeeper mentions, in the context of the author's article, the placebo effect is actually opposite to the desired one as users gets more nervous and angry when a button doesn't produce its expected result. --86.175.59.63 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Placebo Button doesn't need to be a placebo or a button. It's an independent concept and the article defines it well enough. Expand with history, examples, uses, etc. Dav30032 ≈ talk 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.16.11 (talk)
 * What a stupid article delete it, this isnt urban dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.206.222 (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Though it shares its name with the Placebo Effect, Placebo Buttons function differently from placebo pills. The article is a stub, but has multiple valid resources and should be expanded, not deleted. J I P  | Talk 10:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.24.67 (talk)
 * Keep, Sigh... Users of a placebo button would NOT become upset when the button does nothing; since the lights do eventually change, the user assumes their action has led to a result. Dimwit.
 * Keep, needs expansion but doesn't deserve to be deleted. --xkoalax (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Informational. DarkoNeko x 16:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a fascinating concept, and much to my surprise, the article has a diverse range of sources already, indicating that this is a robust and researched concept independent from medical placebos. --M @ r ē ino 04:14, 10 September 2009 (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.