Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voon

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 Richardcavell 00:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voon

Wikipedia is not for drinks made up one day last month. The only reference is to a vanity page with nonsense text. Derek Balsam 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Wickethewok 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and pour down the sink. NawlinWiki 18:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Voon is very well known in my home town of Frankston, Victoria. --Dzielezna 05:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Voon is well known in Western Australia too, I first tried it in 2001. --josh64 05:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I mentioned Voon to a couple bartenders I know, who'd heard of it dating back at least as far as 2003. (Probably worth noting that these bartenders live and work in St. Albans, Victoria) --Sidless 05:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism of no apparent widespread use. --Stormie 05:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Voon is also known in Brisbane, QLD, as of 2002, possibly earlier. --Abaddeley 05:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While it might seem like Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day (caution: essay, not policy) to an American, it isn't to an Aussie. Goodness sakes! --DavidHOzAu 06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The article itself claims that Voon was invented in June 2006. The only references it cites are vanity web pages such as the obviously bogus [1] which was registered on 21 July 2006. Perhaps Voon is well-known to an Aussie: some of the commenters above claim this, but their claims don't match the article. The article specifically claims that someone (evidently the author) invented the drink at a party last month. As the article stands, it is original research, vanity, made up one day, and non-notable. Derek Balsam 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The author might claim he invented it, but I assume he is a shameless liar. He most certainly did not. I know plenty of people who have imbibed voon over the years. Dzielezna 23:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Could you please cite some reliable sources documenting the use/popularity of "Voon"? Simply claiming to know people who have had this drink is not enough, you need reliable sources. Wickethewok 01:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of geographically disparate Australians have already stated they know of Voon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wilkes%2C_Wyss_and_Onefortyone#Sources_for_popular_culture Dzielezna 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Editors claiming they have had this beverage is not a reliable source of information. Please cite some examples that fit with the description at WP:RS. Wickethewok 02:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The google test [2] reveals no usage of the word "voon" as an alcoholic beverage. Google turns up results for the surname "Voon", for the Dutch word "voon", for an unrelated slang term in the Urban Dictionary, etc.. A google search for "voon australia", "voon drink", and "voon alcohol" are similarly fruitless. Note that I'm not claiming "voon" does not exist. I have no idea if it does or doesn't. What I'm saying is, as a neutral reader of Wikipedia with no prior knowledge of any "voon", I would have to assume from an NPOV that the article as written was a bogus, vanity article. The reason I nominated the article for deletion is that there is no evidence given in the article that it does exist, and no independent evidence of any kind anywhere, including google, that it really exists.Derek Balsam 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The google test, whilst one metric of a subject's notability, is not in and of itself a reliable test of anything other than google's ability to index the web. How many web pages does something need in order to be verifiable? Voon is falsifiable, in the sense that you can mix it yourself and compare your experience with the subject matter of the article; it is also obviously not merely something 'made up in school one day', as the number of people posting here would tend to indicate. Perhaps the article needs work to reflect the considerable exposure that those voting here have to this beverage, but I would suggest that deleting this article due to the non-notability of its subject is akin to slicing off your nose because googling 'derek balsam's nose' would spite your face. -Sidless 05:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You misunderstand - it's not notability that's at issue here. It's that the article constitutes clear original research and verifiability problems. Simply find good sources and rewrite the article and the debate will be finished with the article staying. Remember that Wikipedia is not about facts, it's about verifiable information. If there are no sources, and if it is impossible to find sources to document its existence, then this article should go. It can be easily rewritten once it becomes notable enough to be written about in an alcoholic beverages magazine or documented in a news program. But it must first be documented. Additionally, and this has nothing to do with AFD in my opinion but more with cleanup, there are some NPOV problems. Statements like, "tastes better than the sum of its parts", and introduced to a "skeptical world" have no place in an encylopedia. I'll remove those now as part of cleanup, but it still doesn't pass the verifiability test. 129.61.46.16 13:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Josh

• Thanks. I am endeavouring to find sources as we speak. --Sidless 02:25, 29 July 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.