- 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, consensus is the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Magic daiquiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable cocktail Corvus cornixtalk 06:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's been deleted once already. Was spam then and is nn spam now. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is far from spam, it is exactly the same as any other alcoholic drink page, the creator does not make or sell the drink, but is a consumer of it and thought that others should know about it.The page does not contain any links to where people can buy the drink, but tells them what they need to create it themselves.It is a drink that can be made by anyone and does not belong to a certain person, group, or place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinnies (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand you worked hard to create this page but there's no evidence that it's notable and appears to promote one version of a daiquiri with most of the article lifted directly from daiquiri. No evidence that this is a notable drink per WP:N and the existence of other articles is irrelevant TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason i am against the articles deletion has nothing to do with time put into it, it has to do with the fact i believe that the topic in question deserves a page. The part of the article lifted from 'daiquiri' is to give the reader some knowledge about the origin of the drink without them reading the full page on 'daiquiri', the fact it is taking from this page is told to the reader before the paragraph starts. Having this pages does not cause any harm to wikipedia or its readers, it contains nothing biased, but a neutral view of the drink. Although it is not a offical alcoholic drink, it is a variant on the original daiquiri and is quite popular in certain areas. The page is clearly not advertising the drink,but rather allowing people to become known about it and possibly create it themselves.The page does not link to any where the drink can be purchased for a profit to the author or a link to clubs,bars or any other form of facility where the drink can be purchased from,or to increase their customers numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinnies (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, however Wikipedia has notability guidelines and a google search does not indicate any notability for the product under either name. A product has to be notable to be included, it's not for something made up by one bar TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The drink was not made up by one bar, it was not made by any bar. It was first introduced to people at a bar, but has since grown and is now made in many private homes and different clubs and bars which sell the original frozen daiquiris. You will not find a site for it on google because it is just a spin on the original frozen daiquiri and became/ becomes popular and known through word of mouth.--Twinnies (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, however Wikipedia has notability guidelines and a google search does not indicate any notability for the product under either name. A product has to be notable to be included, it's not for something made up by one bar TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason i am against the articles deletion has nothing to do with time put into it, it has to do with the fact i believe that the topic in question deserves a page. The part of the article lifted from 'daiquiri' is to give the reader some knowledge about the origin of the drink without them reading the full page on 'daiquiri', the fact it is taking from this page is told to the reader before the paragraph starts. Having this pages does not cause any harm to wikipedia or its readers, it contains nothing biased, but a neutral view of the drink. Although it is not a offical alcoholic drink, it is a variant on the original daiquiri and is quite popular in certain areas. The page is clearly not advertising the drink,but rather allowing people to become known about it and possibly create it themselves.The page does not link to any where the drink can be purchased for a profit to the author or a link to clubs,bars or any other form of facility where the drink can be purchased from,or to increase their customers numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinnies (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand you worked hard to create this page but there's no evidence that it's notable and appears to promote one version of a daiquiri with most of the article lifted directly from daiquiri. No evidence that this is a notable drink per WP:N and the existence of other articles is irrelevant TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i think that the magic daiquiri is a real drink. a few of the clubs near where i live have served them for ages. i think that the page should stay there. around where i live people just call them MDs for short. that is how popular they are. the MD page should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.228.3 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COmmentUnfortunately popularity!notability and there are guidelines that Wikipedia follows TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- that last guy who said something must have had way too many magic daiquiris because clearly that didnt make sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.228.3 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't see how this is any different from a Frozen Daiquiri. At the most it should be a variant on the main Daiquiri page but as it seems completely non-notable per Wiki guidelines, I doubt it even deserves that. The current article adds nothing beyond repeating basically the contents of the Daiquiri article. 86.3.150.116 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make this article disappear. Too much duplication of Daiquiri; not enough citation from independent, reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 06:29, 22 March 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.