Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbomb (beer cocktail)

Unreferenced, non notable "cocktail". Wikipedia is not a recipe book. John (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insignificant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the link provided above shows a decent (can be considered significant) amount of coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sourcing/significant coverage is found. Corpx (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Comment Which sources would those be? --John (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - I would not regard that as satisfying WP:RS or WP:V. Of course, YMMV. --John (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]