- 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. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotsmac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Little or no content, non-notable, promotional in nature. This clearly doesn't belong here Purplebackpack89 14:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is a stub certainly, as it says; I don't think it's promotional. Is the drink non-notable? Not so sure: A Google Search turns up one (no longer accessible) Scotland on Sunday article and a fair number of notice boards reminiscing about the stuff: [1]. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't count noticeboards as reliable sources. Up until yesterday, the only reference was a Facebook group; the only current reference now appears not to be much better. Purplebackpack89 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google Search above turns up refs in Wordsworth Dictionary of Drink, Wine Marketing Handbook, The Flavour Industry and Brewing Review, plus more popular culture mentions (as with the notice boards) in a novel and a couple of sociological articles about the drink's cultural "impact". AllyD (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't count noticeboards as reliable sources. Up until yesterday, the only reference was a Facebook group; the only current reference now appears not to be much better. Purplebackpack89 18:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, weakly. Google Books [2] and Scholar [3] hits reveal some substantial coverage, even if I don't have immediate access to the full sources, and the Scholar hit seems ninnyish and public-healthist. The many slight mentions you will find on Books where this ... "beverage" ... is referred to in passing speaks of some cultural significance similar to Scotland's pride, Buckfast Tonic Wine. The ability to persuade people to drink a shandy made of cheap wine and cheap Scotch whisky would appear to be a triumph of the salesman's art. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As part of my research I went out to buy it and found in the first shop I went to. I believe it may be unique in being a blend of wine and whisky. (If it is not unique and there is a generic term for such a blend, then I would say convert this to a redirect to an article about the generic term.) In a way the fact that it gets such a bad press but still sells is a claim to notability - the Trabant springs to mind as another example. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are so many references on this subject, why aren't they in the article? Purplebackpack89 15:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delit. Musch like RaHwortyh aubov, I researchd this fine beveridge extnesnivly, both on theInternet and juts now by firts-hand investigashun.. wwwwwwwwWIth much reagret, *hic*, i must concede a lack of non-tribial publshed coverage. a few incidental mentinos inn long articls about broader topics do'nt make it natoble. 70.51.156.87 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per remarks by Smerdis of Tlön. Interesting if it is indeed a unique product. A quick g-search doesn't come up with anything. Ben MacDui 18:46, 3 August 2010 (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.