Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brass Monkey (cocktail)

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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brass Monkey (cocktail)

This was redirected to list of cocktails after having been transwikied to wikibooks. I don't think that's such a good solution, since there's no description of this cocktail in the list. Merging would be a bad idea, since the list is just a list. I think it should be either kept or deleted. Brian G. Crawford 00:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep in some form. Merge with Beastie Boys and use as a redirect would be one solution. Tyrenius 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd honestly rather see it kept as is than redirected to Beastie Boys. They didn't invent the drink, despite what the article suggests. Brian G. Crawford 02:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Brian G. Crawford. -- Kjkolb 03:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There's more to say about this subject than just the recipe. ike9898 05:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 07:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if it's only notable for being mentioned in a Beastie Boys song, then I don't think it deserves its own article. JIP | Talk 08:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete more drunkcruft. Up your bottom! Just zis Guy you know? 13:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; already goes well beyond a simple recipe, and there is more to be said about this cocktail as well. Smerdis of Tlön 20:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep if valid sources can be provided, unsure what the best merge target for this would be otherwise. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepNeeds sources, but if it can be cleaned up, keep it. Brokenfrog 00:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It owes its notability to the Beastie Boys, but has gained significance beyond that. It could and probably will be expanded in the future.--ragesoss 23:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep this please it has significance we are not a paper encyclopedia Yuckfoo 18:26, 16 May 2006 (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.