Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screaming Viking

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. I'll note that Quatloo's comment about the lack of sources is serious, but we can give the article time to improve first. Mango juice^talk 16:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Viking

No idea whether or not this is notable. Maybe so-- a drink from Cheers with a multitude of G hits. I de-speedied, cleaned it up, and added a citable recipe. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ??? I had speedy'ed the article to start with, then it was cleaned up but is just short. I have no idea where it belongs, but I think it may belong somewhere, I just don't know where. I am not convinced that the "somewhere" is an article of its own, however. Pharmboy 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are about 90 other Mixed drink stubs. Hopefully, we can find some verifiable sources. . . . Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- change to keep and cleanup If there are that many cocktail stubs, then maybe we just need to reorganize them a bit. I looked and found more than enough categories (wow..) for cocktails and such. While recipes for cocktails is a bit outside normal encyclopedias, Wikipedia is Not A Paper Encyclopedia, and I guess that is ok. Hope this isn't a Pandoras box. Sounds like Dlohcierekim just volunteered. ;) Pharmboy 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Actually WP:NOT#GUIDE specifically says "Wikipedia articles should not include … recipes." I don't have a problem with articles that include encyclopedic information about mixed drinks, but the ones that consist primarily of instructions for making them seem to me candidates for prod or AfD. I think I've prodded one or two myself. Deor 02:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply True, but we've a category for mixed drinks. It's just a stub now. Perhpas encyclopedic information could be added. Whether or not it's enough of a "pop culture" icon for an artilce could be something we discuss here. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment In this case, the reference to pop culture via Cheers would be enough to keep it. Policy in this case isn't perfectly clear (to me, anyway), so I have to default to keep under "wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Pharmboy 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to Cheers. 132.205.99.122 20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question The original speedier has changed to keep and I just brought it here because I did not know for sure one way or another (and !voted keep). Should we speedy keep or let it run? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't speedy keep because there are legit reasons to object and this isn't a case of a mistaken AFD as much as I just changed my mind after award winning persuation ;) I hate to speedy keep unless there is 100% agreement, excepting the AFD nominator. We aren't quite there. Pharmboy 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let it ride. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks non-trivial source. Quatloo (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2007 (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.