Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viral drink

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. The weight of PAG based argument is clearly against retention. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viral drink

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not particularly encyclopedic. All the sources aren't about the concept of "viral drinks", which appears to simply be drinks that are popular over a period of time, but about individual cocktails themselves. GPL93 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be a list article, then. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure about that, given that all but a few of the drinks are not notable on their own. I think the best course of action would be to mention that "X drink was popular during Y time" in the drink's own article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does notability work, when it comes to lists; does it suffice for the list items to be notable, or do there have to be reliable sources about the topic of the list as a whole? I would think if a lot of such sources existed, it might allow for the expansion of the article to be more than a list.

What I see happening in some cases is that there will be an article in the press about a trendy drink, that'll compare it to related or similar trends. For example, the flavored malt beverage trend's hard soda component started with root beer and continued with ginger ale, orange soda, etc. But this was part of an overarching trend in which consumers, bored with craft beer, started switching to other beverages that were getting marketed (one of the latest trends being hard seltzer, which in the case of White Claw Hard Seltzer, was driven by marketing inspired by the Smirnoff Ice trend, including the icing phenomenon; Smirnoff Ice itself, by the way, has been described as an attempt to replicate the success of Zima). See, e.g., quotations from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Viral drink for more detail/examples. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be in RfD? It is currently a redirect. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: It appears that the article's creator has changed the name since I AfDed it. More or less I've tried to explain that the article is: A) redundant as we already have articles about Fads and market trends and B) an Original thought, which the original title indicated. However, he thinks that by changing the name of the article to seem like a broader concept or turn it into a list of some sort (which would most likely be WP:LISTCRUFT will somehow get the subject to meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but needs lots of work. The article is now at Popularity spikes of drinks, which is a better article title, but still not great. I think there is some content here and it has been improved since the deletion nomination, but it's quite WP:SYNTH-y. The first four references do actually appear to be about the phenomenon of how drinks are marketed and see popularity spikes, so I think they demonstrate WP:GNG. The latter half of the article is a list and needs clear list criteria as per WP:LSC, but that's achievable. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about splitting alcoholic drinks and coffee drinks into separate lists, since those seem to be the main categories I ran into when looking up viral drinks. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of a "viral drink" is notable, and warrants an article, iff there are multiple independent reliable secondary sources that describe viral drinks as a concept, as opposed to the various examples given in the article as it currently is. There are a couple sources in the article that appear to do so, such as Mancall-Bitel and Ng, so I'll give this the benefit of the doubt and !vote to keep it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Entirely synthesis. While a few of the sources use the term "viral", the topic as a whole isn't widely covered. This could be merged somehow with Food trends, Health food trends, and Camera eats first, but the idea that certain beverages become popular is hardly a notable concept. I don't see any sources tying the drinks listed together. Even with the Mancall-Bitel article, a mention could be made elsewhere but that doesn't establish the need for an independent article. Reywas92^Talk

Did you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Viral drink, where there are sources tying together drink trends? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment. I've moved this back to the original title. It's generally not a good idea to rename a page while an AfD is running, for the reasons outlined in WP:AFDEQ. It really messes up the operation of the closing scripts, and the potential for confusion is illustrated in the discussion above. After this is over (assuming the article is kept), if somebody wants to move it back to the new title, that's fine. But please leave it where it is until the AfD is over. I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of times, if you keep it under a suboptimal title, it makes it more likely that people will vote to delete. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This concept may be notable, but this is not a good start for an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH without question. No WP:RS anywhere which indicates the notability of a so called phenomenon of a viral drink. Possibly some information here could be used to add to the viral marketing article, but the majority of the information as presented is WP:PROMO... FWIW - northern Italians have been drinking Aperol spritz for 50 years... hardly a viral drink in that context ... this points to the inherent SYNTH issues of the article - in many cases these drinks have existed for long periods.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Do you see in the article a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources? I don't see anywhere that it says no one was drinking Aperol spritzes before they went viral in the U.S. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no reliable sources (see WP:NEWSORG) of this so-called phenomenon. It is a list of beverages that became popular in the USA at a certain point in time due to advertising. Again, see WP:NOT.--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2019 (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.