Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passoã
- 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. (
Biblioworm 01:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
]
Passoã
- Passoã (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable spirits. Neither of the references provides in depth independent coverage of the topic.
Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
]
- Keep Hundreds of books about bartending and cocktail making mention this drink. Possibly useful information. --]
- Oh yes, hundreds of books list this as an ingredient and those recipes are very useful information if you're looking for cocktail recipes, but wikipedia isn't a cocktail recipe book and requires 'significant coverage' not just passing mentions in ingredient lists. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)]
- Well, ]
- Oh yes, hundreds of books list this as an ingredient and those recipes are very useful information if you're looking for cocktail recipes, but wikipedia isn't a cocktail recipe book and requires 'significant coverage' not just passing mentions in ingredient lists.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I think if it's listed as an ingredient in a lot of drinks then it probably deserves an article. That doesn't make Wikipedia a cocktail recipe book. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 17:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 21:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)]
- Delete: A subject doesn't become notable because it's in drink recipes. It becomes notable when there are multiple reliable sources discussing the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG stipulates. Where are those sources?
One other thing -- Vejvančický claims that this is "potentially useful information." Even if that wasn't a discredited
WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, what information is that, exactly? Nha Trang 20:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - and somewhat concerned that the above new account NukeThePukes/NhaTrang seems to be a dedicated deletion account of an experienced user. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think we're both experienced enough to be aware that the behaviour of other editors does not constitute a valid argument in a !vote; I would encourage you to put one forward. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)]
- Really? What's your concern, buddy -- other than maybe you didn't care for my referencing your IDONTLIKEIT argument in this AfD? So far, I haven't voted to delete any article that wasn't deleted, and voted to keep the article in these three which closed as Keep or No Consensus, so how about giving that "dedicated deletion" nonsense a rest. (Not that there's anything illegal or immoral about a "dedicated deletion account" -- since when do you or any other editor get to dictate what areas other editors do their work in?) Anyway, if you don't like my argument here, refute it. Or come up with anything, really, because Stuart's right, you voted Keep without giving any reason to keep. You want to make personal attacks instead, take it off of here and to my talk page. Nha Trang 15:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think we're both experienced enough to be aware that the behaviour of other editors does not constitute a valid argument in a !vote; I would encourage you to put one forward.
- 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.