Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lasagna cell

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. John254 04:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lasagna cell

Nonsense. Deleted, but got undeleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete has the distinct stink of WP:NFT, particulalry with only 40 odd Ghits. The Rambling Man 17:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That's no coincidence. I added the article because I found no appropriate Google hits. I was answering a science question on WP:RD/s related to Lasagna Battery effect.
• Keep, alternatively merge and redirect to galvanic cell, as it admittedly isn't one of the more important article topics. For the record, the page was undeleted due to a misapplied speedy deletion criterion. The content is not nonsense and the use of the term is cited in a published journal. Femto 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• A similar article, Lemon battery, was nominated for deletion about a year ago, but was kept. I don't know if this article is really notable in the big scheme of things, but it isn't nonsense and isn't something made up in school. (In fact, it could have made a good DYK submission.) Keep. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm a little unsure about notability, but "nonsense" is clearly not a reason for deletion in this case. Merging into galvanic cell might not be a bad idea either. Slideshow Bob 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the only source for the article content I could find is the article in The Physics Teacher. All other references I found simply mention the term and link to that article. Is there someone around here who can confirm that the article does not contain information that is not verifiable via that article? Tizio 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have the article: it's about a lemon-powered piezeo beeper, with just a paragraph about aluminum foil sacrificial anode chemistry when used with lasagna. Also see the 3rd paragraph in this book review.
• Weak keep; better yet, merge and redirect. When I originally prod'd the article, it was still in raw form and read like WP:NFT. Current version is sourced and obviously not nonsense. Caveat: if article is merged/redirected, so should Lemon battery -- smells like the same situation to me, and redirects are cheap. OscarTheCat3 21:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Galvanic cell. Any 2 different metals and any electrolyte (potato, pickle, tomato, orange, grapefruit, yam, mud, vomit, cat pee, saliva, apple pie, etc, etc, etc will generate electricity similarly. There are potentially a vast number of such articles. Deserves only a mention in the target article. Edison 22:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not nonsense, it appears in journal papers, so the cause of this AfD is simply wrong. Also, note that the entry is days old, and really not yet complete enough to be judged by the standards of typical WP entries. Should I have added a stub tag? I wrote the article as a separate entry because it is similar to both the ice spike and lemon battery articles: a household science mystery as well as a known physics lecture demonstration. Also, I've seen another Lasagna Battery paper in Journal of Chemical Education in late 1980s, but I don't have a copy myself. After a related topic came up on WP:RD/SCI, I found that WP had no existing info, Google shows no info on www, yet it's discussed on educator list servers and articles are available in paper journals. Merge and redirect, as an example of electrolytic corrosion in the kitchen, galvanic cell isn't the best, nor is lemon battery, so possibly put it under cathodic protection or sacrificial anode, or even group it with ice spike under a larger entry on kitchen science mysteries. More important issue: this article is new. Perhaps I don't understand WP policies about stub-like articles, but aren't such articles usually given a chance to grow? Keep in mind that an article that's one minute old and one sentence long will certainly fail AfD if it's judged by the standards of typical articles. --Wjbeaty 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have to say, that I am not at all familiar with the term myself, and as I am a science teacher I am familar with many such cells. As User:Edison suggest there must be many terms for essentially the same phenomenon so merging may well be a better option althogh I'll offer no opnion as to which article it should be merged with. Just as long as we don't actually delete it. I'll be happy. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the title is misleading. Both Theresa and Edison seem to think the article is about a cell. It's actually about the explanation of a household mystery; an "interesting everyday phenomenon." But this phenomenon already goes by the name "lasagna cell or battery," and it would be OP for me to coin a less misleading version such as "lasagna foil electrolysis" or something. There of course are hundreds of combinations such as "potato battery" which form electrolytic cells. But this entirely misses the point, because there are not hundreds of different explanations for why the aluminum foil cover on a pan of lasagna mysteriously becomes perforated. (There is one widespread incorrect explanation though. Some articles wrongly state that acids in tomato sauce are the source of the corrosion.) --Wjbeaty 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You've convinced me! I've struck out my "merge" comment and now think we should just keep the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I just looked at the article and the tomato acid incorrect explanation is not in it. I think it should be along with an explanation of why it is incorrect. Can you add that? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:41, 18 January 2007 (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.