Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Mixed Drinks

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 merged. W.marsh 17:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agua loca

Agua loca (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability and verifiability both lacking. A speedy tag was removed [1] YechielMan 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mixed Drinks-related deletions.
• I am not surprised that the speedy delete was removed. The preferred way to request removal of mixed drink-related articles (even really bad ones like this particular one) is to place {{WPMIXMergeDelete}} on the talk page and then add a note explaining the request. The reason we request this (and it is a request, not an official policy), is because the Mixed Drinks WikiProject tends to cut and paste little snippets of otherwise substandard articles, and merge the good parts into other articles. For GFDL license requirements, we must keep the original edit history intact, and turn the old page into a redirect pointing to where the information has been moved.
• The question to be determined in this case is: is there anything worth salvaging from this article? I do not know anything about the topic of this article, but the discussion on the talk page indicates that the term, at least, might be notable enough to be described somewhere (possibly in the Spanish Wiktionary with an interwiki soft redirect?). Here is what one user wrote: "Maybe the article should be changed to define it as a joke/slang term and it ways it can be used."
• I have no opinion on the value of the article itself (I don't know enough to make any judgment), but if any part of the article is kept (even in the Spanish Wiktionary or a different article here), then my vote is to convert the article into some type of REDIRECT to the new location to preserve the edit history. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 20:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• The article hasn't changed substantially since I translated it from Spanish. The article has a couple of curious points, like the insistence on using tapwater rather than distilled water. Also the phrase "una bebida alcoholica preparada antiquisima" in the original kind of gave me translation problems. I translated this as "an alcoholic beverage prepared since ancient times" although it literally means "an alcoholic beverage prepared very antiquely" or somesuch. I vote merge and redirect with Punch (drink) Nardman1 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Give me a few days and I'll do the necessary merging and redirect if there are no objections. Nardman1 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close as merge in progress. Nardman1, just remember that not everyone will be aware of your project procedures and in any case a Wikipedia procedure will almost always take precedence. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- I am aware that policy always trumps WikiProject, and that's why I mentioned it here in the beginning. Thanks Nardman for a clean and simple resolution. I just hope that it doesn't overwhelm punch with an apparently non-notable drink. :-) --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha. As you know That page is huge already, but punch (drink) isn't. Anyway the merge is complete, all that remains is to close the afd and mark the talk page of agua loca. Nardman1 17:45, 31 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.

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 transwiki. Majorly (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Estate Cocktail

Fourth Estate Cocktail (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Apparently a non-notable cocktail. My belief was that a bit of creative searching was necessary, but yielded very little in the way of WP:RS, at least as far as this particular version of the recipe goes. Delete as WP:NOT a publisher of original recipes. Kinu ^t/_c 05:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cocktails-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to b:Bartending Keep for 1 week or less then convert to a redirect. to allow WikiProject Cocktails a chance to locate more information, integrate it into an appropriate list somewhere else, or otherwise deal with it in a productive manner. This one was under our radar screen (thanks SkierRMH for adding it to the deletions list!). Additionally, I request that the article NOT be deleted, but rather turned into a redirect wherever we end up moving the information to. It was pointed out to us that we need to keep the original edit history for GFDL reasons when we move information around and integrate it like we do for articles like this. If the cocktail turns out to be so non-notable that I can't find any viable information about it, I may change my vote back to a full delete; I'll let you know within a day or two. I will be happy to take responsibility for handling conversion to redirect, if that is the best option and acceptable with everyone. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 15:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Kinu. No time extension is necessary. The AfD runs five days, which is plenty of time to show how this meets content policies. Agent 86 20:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In the past I would have asked for an extension through February 28th citing the Cleanup Project under way by our WikiProject on all articles like this. 5 days is a very short amount of time given how much work the Project Participants are involved in, though I think our effectiveness at cleaning up this part of Wikipedia should be very clear by now. We are much faster at processing things now, so I chose to be conservative by estimating only one week just to try to make everyone happy. :-) Either way, deleting is definitely not the right answer (unless it turns out to be a hoax), because if any part of the article is kept (which is very likely, even if only transwikied to b:Bartending, we have to keep the edit history for GFDL licensing and attribution requirements. As I stated, the article needs to be converted to a redirect if any portion of the original text is kept, and it is likely that some of the text will be kept. The redirect would point to the new location of the moved text. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I added this cocktail to fit in with a new category involving absinthe-based cocktails or cocktails with absinthe in their makeup that I am working on. You may delete it, although it is an unusual recipe that is not commonly found in guides, the main reason I included it. I see no reason why it should be deleted, as it is a feasible recipe that is not life-threatening that would expand the list of cocktails recorded in Wikipedia. I think that the Cocktail project needs more input on these new designs and I can't see why it can't be included.Hotspur23 05:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is not a collection of recipes (for cocktails or otherwise). To be included in Wikipedia, the topic of an article needs to have more depth. The notability and importance of the drink must be demonstrated as shown by citing several reliable sources. I definitely appreciate what you are trying to do here. If this is part of a series of articles you are developing, we might be able to develop a single article that discusses these cocktails in a broad sense, and explore some specific examples. Then, if and when the article grows large enough, with plenty of good information, start splitting sections of that article into smaller, more fully developed articles. It is certainly something that would be worth discussing at the WikiProject Mixed Drinks (we just changed the name of the project to be more inclusive; sorry for any confusion). --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 06:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be moved to Wiki Project Mixed Drinks and not deleted. It seems silly to delete it when there is a program to do the very thing you want to delete it for in Wikipedia. Plus it can be argued that cocktail recipes are information that can be stored in wikipedia, since they are already on record. They don't have to be famous or noteworthy (though there are recipes that are recorded in it that are); they just have to be useful. This just seems a bit trollish to bounce the article. 24.34.207.250 10:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks 24.34.207.250, though I wouldn't classify it as trollish. :-) Kinu has very valid points for articles in general at Wikipedia. The articles concerning mixed drinks in general do seem to defy WP:NOT#IINFO, because a mixed drink, at its heart, is essentially a recipe. It's much like a chemical compound, in that the parts that make up the whole help to define the substance itself. However, with some (or sometimes a lot of) creative researching, it is possible to create a meaningful, encyclopedic article even when all you have is a recipe with which to start. (See Bronx (cocktail) for a perfect example updated yesterday.) It is success stories like the Bronx that illustrate how weak articles can, and should, be improved. This AFD process is an important part of making sure that Wikipedia remains relevant.
• All that being said, I did complete my initial research into this particular drink. I was able to locate the recipe in several places, but no real information about its notability or history. Since it does seem to be popular, I changed my vote to transwiki it to the Bartending manual at Wikibooks (with which I am also an editor), and then convert the page under discussion to a redirect. Again, I stress that it is important to not delete the actual page, since even when transwikiing, it is important to keep the edit history for GFDL compliance.
• I have also added a section under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed Drinks/Work Area#List of incubating articles section for Hotspur23 and anyone else interested, to start developing an article that will serve the needs of Absinthe aficionados, while also meeting Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. I feel the new article is necessary since the topic is largely ignored in the Absinthe article, and yet it is a large part of the Absinthe culture. If possible, I would also request that other Absinthe related articles not be deleted at least through the end of February so we can easily refer to them and merge them as necessary into the developing article or Wikibooks. Thanks. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Bartending per Willscrlt. Seems like a perfect solution.--Kubigula (talk) 21:00, 22 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.