Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whynatte

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 Delete, Nakon 00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whynatte[edit]

Proposed for deletion in April 2007, deleted by me. In June 2008, the author contacted me and contested the deletion. I have undeleted the article and brought it to AfD straight away. This is a purely procedural nomination, I have no opinion myself. JIP | Talk 19:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highly unencyclopediac, and per WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a legitimate cocktail. It has been feature in Rolling Stone, Creative Loafing, and is a recipe on Jagermeisters official website. I vote to keep it on wikipedia since I see no difference between the article on whynatte and the articles on a Jager Bomb, a Mojito, or a Bloody Mary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.100.101 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Rolling Stone and Creative Loafing are very short mentions. First 6 pages of non-wiki ghits aren't turning up notability; the single gnews hit is a passing mention. I'd really like to see something more substantial to push me over to the keep side.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rolling Stone Magazine is the foremost authority on popular culture over the last 30 years. Even a small mention in Rolling Stones speaks volumes to the legitamacy of the whynatte. Jägermeister's website, which is completely unaffiliated with whynatte, and is the maker of one of the components of the cocktail, shows an actual photo and description of the whynatte. What could be more convincing.--Crapplejax (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC) — Crapplejax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Because Jägermeister is a component of the cocktail, they definitely have a financial interest in promoting the cocktail.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that it's mentioned in a notable magazine does not confer notability to the product. And I also removed the material that was a copy/paste from the promoters website. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment RedBull is mentioned by name on the Jägermeister website, does this in anyway undermine Redbull's legitimacy as an entry?--Crapplejax (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Absolutely not. But it doesn't establish notability for RedBull, either.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply I think this comes down to a matter of opinion. My stance is that recognition by one of the largest liquor distributers in the country (Sidney Frank) does impart notability, especially when this is only a small piece of the story. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.--Crapplejax (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep rolling stone and msnbc are more than enough to show that this is legitimate --Senso321 (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No one is saying that the cocktail is not legitimate but that it's not notable. Also, MSNBC didn't discuss the product but Michael Johns (singer) mentioned it, which isn't quite the same thing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Clearly this just comes down to what you think notable is. Whynatte is completely independent from Jägermeister, just as Redbull is. As Wikipedia says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." WP:Notability.--Crapplejax (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like we agree on what WP:N says, just not on what the word independent means.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply (after ec). I agree but the thing is that MSNBC, Fan House and Socialite Life are not covering Whynatte but Michael Johns, who happend to be drinking one. Colleen's Cocktails Blog covers it but that's a blog and not a reliable source. As to Creative Loafing, I'm not sure what that is and I don't have the RS on hand to see what they said. So out of 6 sources there are really only a possible 2 that might qualifiy. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this clearly shows why this entry should stay "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." WP:N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.110.90 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is a non-notable cocktail (unlike Bloody Mary etc). Also, why does a cocktail have a company slogan? Is it a cocktail or a product?Yobmod (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At what point does a cocktail become notable? I hope you're not implying that because you've never heard of it, its not notable. As well you've done nothing to refute what Wikipedia has said regarding notability. This argument should be conducted not on what you feel is notable, but what Wikipedia defines as notable.--Crapplejax (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The discussion is on what Wikipeida defines as notability. From above "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." So far So far notabilty is not established in the article and there seems little probability that independent sources can be found. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Once again Rolling Stone Magazine, Creative Loafing, and The Sunday Paper have all covered the drink. As well it was featured on MSNBC in the headline. All described as reliable news sources by none other than Wikipedia itself. I just added The Sunday Paper article as another source. Jason Tesauro is also a writer for Maxim Magazine, Imbibe Magazine, and is a published author. --Crapplejax (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not claim to be notable. do we have wiki-cookbooks? --T-rex 05:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.