Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Brainfuck

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 delete. Sr13 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caribbean Brainfuck

Caribbean Brainfuck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has no WP:RS and gets zero ghits. Appears to be completely WP:OR. Evb-wiki 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• What else can be added in terms of research, as it is a relatively new drink. -Zephyrus408

• Delete. First of all, it's a recipe, and belongs in WikiBooks - in the cookbook, or the mixed drink book if they have one. So at the least it needs to be TransWiki'd. But that's assuming that it's for real. We aren't going to just take the writer's word for it that it is. If there are no articles or other third-party references then it is probably not notable enough anyway. Herostratus 02:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the very least can I have a few days to allow it to grow?

• Delete. Looking at the IBA Official Cocktail page, there isn't a set-in-stone list of criteria for for why cocktails on that page are notable, but I can discern two things- that the cocktails are "selected by the International Bartenders Association ("IBA") for use in the annual World Cocktail Competition (WCC)", and they had some kind of cultural significance immediately outside the world of fine alcohol- vodka martini being James Bond's favorite drink, Pina Colada being referenced in a Rupert Holmes song, etc. I'm sure that there are loads more criterion for what makes a drink notable and that the ones I mentioned are nowhere near the most important- but this particular drink fulfills neither.

As far as the AFD goes, you have five days from when it was started to add sources and clean up the article. AFDs aren't concerned with an article's potential- only about the condition of the page when it's tagged, and it will not be stopped to allow you to clean it up. 68.186.51.190 02:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Per CSD#G3. ~ Wikihermit 03:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sure, there's no place for this page on Wikipedia but this quite clearly is not pure vandalism unless you can demonstrate that the creator's sole purpose was vandalism. I see no reason not to assume good faith here so let's let this AfD run its course. Pascal.Tesson 03:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not famous enough (a quick Google gave me practically zilch).--Targeman 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. JJL 03:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — No notability, probable WP:OR JodyB _talk 03:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wiki not a recipe book Bulldog123 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per discusssion. If it weren't for the fact that I hated 151, I'd be inclined to try it, but despite my bias against booze with flammability warnings, we're not a recipe book. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment From looking at the user's talk page, the user already tried to create this article under "Caribbean brainfuck" (no capitalization on "brainfuck"), and it was speedied under A7. 68.186.51.190 18:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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.