Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbomb (beer cocktail): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Skier Dude (talk | contribs) category |
Georgiamonet (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*'''Delete''' - the "sources" look like blogs and the like,and fail [[:WP:RS]]. The drink itself has no sourced notability. Heck, I could find you more printed sources than that about the [[Spayed Gerbil]], but I'm not gonna assert ITS notability. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - the "sources" look like blogs and the like,and fail [[:WP:RS]]. The drink itself has no sourced notability. Heck, I could find you more printed sources than that about the [[Spayed Gerbil]], but I'm not gonna assert ITS notability. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:*'''Comment'''. It's not a standard Google search, it's Google News, and in my opinion almost everything in Google News is a reliable source, unlike Google search, if I'm not mistaken...--'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]''</sup> <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch|r e s e a r c h]]'''</sub> 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment'''. It's not a standard Google search, it's Google News, and in my opinion almost everything in Google News is a reliable source, unlike Google search, if I'm not mistaken...--'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' <sup>''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]''</sup> <sub>'''[[Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch|r e s e a r c h]]'''</sub> 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' the article needs sources but the subject is valid. There are pages on other drinks so why not this one? [[User:Georgiamonet|Georgiamonet]] ([[User talk:Georgiamonet|talk]]) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:59, 4 February 2008
- Carbomb (beer cocktail) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unreferenced, non notable "cocktail". Wikipedia is not a recipe book. John (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - insignificant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the link provided above shows a decent (can be considered significant) amount of coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless some sourcing/significant coverage is found. Corpx (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per brewcrewer - whilst the sources are not cited in the article yet, they should be, to establish the notability that obviously exists. Passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Which sources would those be? --John (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this for example.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would not regard that as satisfying WP:RS or WP:V. Of course, YMMV. --John (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this for example.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Which sources would those be? --John (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the "sources" look like blogs and the like,and fail WP:RS. The drink itself has no sourced notability. Heck, I could find you more printed sources than that about the Spayed Gerbil, but I'm not gonna assert ITS notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. It's not a standard Google search, it's Google News, and in my opinion almost everything in Google News is a reliable source, unlike Google search, if I'm not mistaken...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep the article needs sources but the subject is valid. There are pages on other drinks so why not this one? Georgiamonet (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)