Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Fashioned

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The result of the debate was keep, nomination withdrawn -- Samir धर्म 04:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Fashioned

~~A recipe for a cocktail. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Aplomado ^talk 23:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)~~ I'm voting keep now thanks to User:AnonEMouse's excellent improvements to the article. Aplomado ^talk 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipieda isn't an instruction manual. Now let me grab a drink. --Starionwolf 00:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are Wikis for this sort of thing, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 00:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Ted 01:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If the article contained any information on its history or cultural significance, I would vote Keep (Martini, Manhattan, and others. Also, there is a "Wikibook bartending". Adambiswanger1 02:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Coredesat 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jammo (SM247) 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. JIP | Talk 12:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does this mean all cocktail articles are being removed? As there are many more less notable cocktails on the Wikipedia than this. Please show some consistency people. --DennyCrane Talk 14:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would vote to delete all those less notable cocktails too. JIP | Talk 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with deleting non-notable and newfangled cocktails, but this cocktail is fairly old, well-documented and well-known. The article discusses not only the recipe but the history. I think it's worth keeping. Phiwum 15:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Edit it to "How to make an "Old Fashoined" cocktail and stick it on WikiHow. Matt 15:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable cocktails usually get kept. I'm rather surprised by the delete votes. Hell, even non-notable cocktails get kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cocksucking Cowboy for a no-consensus keep on a recently created/named cocktail. Also check out the AfD for Garlic chutney below. I don't see how garlic chutney is more worthy than the venerable old fashioned. Erik the Rude 17:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most cocktails aren't all that notable, but an old fashioned is very well-known. It merits an entry. GassyGuy 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No assertion of notability in the article. Aplomado ^talk 18:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable --Pilo t|guy ^{(roger that)} 19:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FireSpike 20:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC) If all the other cocktails stay, this stays.[reply]
- Comment: That's a terrible reason to keep something. Many times a well-meaning person will undertake a project to write articles about a number of related things, such as cocktails and card games. Then when somebody lists one of them for deletion, somebody inevitably cites "precedent." That's not a precedent on a free encyclopedia. When such articles have undergone review and have been determined keepable, that's a precedent. If there are other articles that are non-notable, they need to be deleted too. Aplomado 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the most famous cocktails. See Martini (cocktail) for a view of how much can be said about these drinks. --JJay 21:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of weak MOVES. Title leads one to expect an article on the concept of being "old fashioned". Request move to "Old Fashioned Cocktail" and transwiking of JUST the recipe IF it is notable enough. Morgan Wick 23:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable cocktail. A good article can be written on this. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a notable cocktail. jgp 07:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a recipe book, however one defines a "notable" cocktail. Tychocat 10:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. The article should focus on the history of the cocktail, not its recipe. AnonEMouse ^(squeak)
Strong Keep- it's perfectly reasonable to keep this as an article but make it less of an instruction manual. It's a notable drink and it should be included in an encyclopedia. -Fearfulsymmetry 05:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, if it's a notable cocktail by all means keep it, but someone needs to at least assert notability in the article. It seems like many in this discussion are just saying "well I think it's notable," which isn't good enough. Aplomado ^talk 18:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have a point, sir. So I did as you asked. One source, a New York Newsday columnist, no less, actually calls the "Old Fashioned" the first drink to ever be called a cocktail - that seems pretty notable. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK much better, this is a worthy article now, well done. I guess I would have to vote to keep this now. Aplomado ^talk 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, now that the nominator had voted keep. — 199 17:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Rewritten article clearly estabilished notability. Eluchil404 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per second comment by nominator. Sophy's Duckling 00:44, 18 June 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.