Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow comfortable screw
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge into screwdriver (cocktail). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed with comment that many cocktails have articles, but the prod reason given wasn't "prod -- cocktail", it was "prod -- WP:NOT a recipe book". It's a well established wikipedia precedent that mere recipes don't get articles. All of the external links are recipes as well. Leave this one in List of cocktails and Wikibooks:Bartending. Quale 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Screwdriver (cocktail) and redirect --Pak21 15:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki per nominator. It belongs in Wikibooks:Bartending/Cocktails/Glossary#S, just as a recipe. James086 Talk | Contribs 16:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What reason is there for this to be deleted and the others listed on List of cocktails to be kept? The article is not a recipe - it says what's in the cocktail. Should ice cream be deleted because it says what's in it? Of course not. There's a difference between a recipe, which is an instruction on how to make a dish or beverage, and an article which simply says what's in it. The fact that's all that's in the article now is not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp 16:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "says what's in the cocktail" not a recipe? I believe that's the definition of recipe. Compare this article to Martini, which describes the history and cultural significance of the drink. That's precisely why some cocktails can support encyclopedic articles and others can't. This keep argument is lousy, because it says that every single recipe in a book with 1,000 cocktails (and there are many books like this) should be given an article. Quale 00:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're basing this argument on a false premise. At the moment, all the article has is a list of the ingredients. However, we do not delete articles because they are stubs. I'm not suggesting that every obscure cocktail should have an article, but this one is very well-known (even I've heard of it, and I know nothing about cocktails). As to the definition of a recipe, I would say a recipe includes, as well as ingredients, a list of exact measures of such ingredients and a detailed method for making it. I see none of those things here. -- Necrothesp 00:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is "says what's in the cocktail" not a recipe? I believe that's the definition of recipe. Compare this article to Martini, which describes the history and cultural significance of the drink. That's precisely why some cocktails can support encyclopedic articles and others can't. This keep argument is lousy, because it says that every single recipe in a book with 1,000 cocktails (and there are many books like this) should be given an article. Quale 00:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. per Necrothesp. It tells you what it is, which is the point of an encyclopedia. --Coroebus 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I love a slow comfortable screw. The drink isn't bad, either. EVula 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(real reason: keep per Necrothesp) - Merge into Screwdriver (cocktail); add under heading variants on (or something similar) - and redirect as this is clearly based on the original Screwdriver, and the information that variations emerged is also interesting (encyclopedia idea) for Screwdriver fans Arnoutf 21:23, 20 October 2006 (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.