Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flaming Dr. Pepper (0th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flaming Dr. Pepper was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Flaming Dr. Pepper

[edit]

I think this article is misplaced. It shouldn't be in wikipedia. I suggest to remove this article and:

1-Move all the article with the recipe to the sister Wikicookbook

2-redirect this article to a subitem in the article Cocktail, with just a reference to Faming dr.Pepper and a link to the cookbook

--Alexandre Van de Sande 16:43, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Allow me to cite Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not: "when writing an article about fried rice, don't give "A simple recipe for fried rice."...Instead, write an article about what is commonly included in a fried rice recipe, the history of fried rice, types of fried rice, how the Chinese and Japanese versions differ, etc." I believe that the article deserves a place on Wikipedia...not only did it appear on the main page (which may not a reason in itself, but it shows that it's interesting and maybe a bit notable, too), but it also gives an example of where it has been used, and some interesting information (it contains no Dr. Pepper). Besides, if we put this article in the cocktail article, it'll eventually become too bloated to be conrolled. But maybe it does have a bit to little information- I would support sending it to RFE, and I might support labelling it a stub, since it doesn't have enough information about the drink itself. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 22:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Wasn't this on Did you know? Why? At any rate, Keep if someone can explain why there's a period in "Dr. Pepper." Do the drinkers of it not realize Dr Pepper has been without a period for decades? Or is this the whole point (because it contains none)? In all seriousness, I do think this has enough facts to keep it in the wikipedia, although it's not a great article. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 00:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lariano It was worth enough to be listed on the title page on Oct. 18th, which, I think, should qualify it as a somewhat worthy encyclopedia article.
  • Keep - not just a recipe; it actually describes something about the drink. Ian Pugh 05:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 05:23, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep People who suggest that things be transwikied need to be aware that Wikibooks may not want them. There is an active cookbook group there, and one of the things they are actively doing is deleting recipes that they don't feel are up to snuff. There have been some misunderstandings as a result. Be aware that sending something to Wikibooks is not just a passive refactoring of information. It is a submission to a different Wiki with different people, different standards, different customs, and different process from ours. If we want to keep something, we need to keep it. There have been unpleasant misunderstandings in which people have thought that letting a recipe be transwikied and linked was a simple refactoring and that the recipe would continue to be available, only to find that the link has gone dead. In borderline cases, this makes me lean toward keeping articles that contain recipes and keeping the recipes in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • If it's not wanted in the project for the only place it might belong, then people can keep it on their own webpage. It certainly doesn't belong here. We shouldn't be accepting stuff outside of our scope merely because we're afraid it won't end up somewhere else. --Improv 15:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Just to clairify the situation, to my knowldge Wikibooks has deleted 1 recipe, and is currently discussing deleting another 1. The cookbook has over 200 recipes in the index, so less than 1% are being deleted because of unsuitability (a few are also possible copyvios, but they'd be deleted no matter which project they were on). Additionally, the two that have been voted on at vfd over there were not transwikied to wikibooks from the 'pedia, but are/were original Wikibooks' contributions (yes, there are a few of those). One was posted by a vandal that has recieved a 1 year ban for repeated vandalism, and the admin cleaning up after him speedied it, it was undeleted at wikibooks' VfU as an out of process deletion, and relisted at VfD and deleted. The other was posted by a known "problem user" (aka "Troll"), but not a simple vandal. The recipe completely fails a google and yahoo test. There is no systematic wholescale deletion of recipes that get transfered over to wikibooks. Having said that, several wikibookians are somewhat upset that pages get dumped into wikibooks without consideration of if they're suitable to our project, and possible additions to b:Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not are being considered to cover content that is dumped there but doesn't really fit the project. Oh, I have no opinion on this deletion debate. Gentgeen 00:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I've finally concluded that I've been a jerk about this. I apologize. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recipe. JFW | T@lk 18:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Recipe: Wikibooks has a cookbook. Wikipedia is encyclopedia space. Geogre 19:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Notability-by-association-to-fancruft is too far a stretch. -- WOT 19:51, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 20:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Recipe. Delete. RickK 21:13, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Delete RickK instead. GRider 21:24, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Personal attacks can get you banned from editing. RickK 05:18, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks —siroχo 23:29, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep
  • Keep at minimum add this information to the Dr Pepper article, notable because it has the same name as a very popular beverage, and notable because it contains no dr Pepper, and notable because it inspired a simpsons episode. (it's at least as notable as where Professor Jonathon Frink's name came from, IMO) This was a 'did you know' a few days ago. Where is the article? I can't find it for some reason... is it already deleted? whoever deleted it left a few dead links around. What about other cocktails like Martini? or Depth charge (cocktail) HEY! Is someone drinking them?Pedant 23:30, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
    • I rolled it back to the article with content, I agree it's very inappropriate to delete before this vote is finished. Shane King 23:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is not just a recipe, it contains at least two non recipe facts (it contains no Dr Pepper, and it inspired the "Flaming Moes" Simpsons episode). Shane King 23:38, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete after moving recipe. The facts, while amusing, aren't important and can go in the cookbook. --cuiusquemodi 02:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Some cookbook material also belongs in Wikipedia, though the criteria seem blurred in some minds. If there is social history, if there is context, if there is some cultural connection beyond the recipe itself, then it belongs in Wikipedia: barbecue, catsup etc. Martini cocktail clearly belongs. Here, I dunno. Especially since we can't mention its "blue collar" context. --Wetman 02:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just on general inclusionist principles. crazyeddie 08:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Webtender. — Gwalla | Talk 19:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recipe. infectbda Oct 21, 2004
  • Keep. Not only is it more than just a recipe (although it should probably be expanded), but it's given me some killer stories.--TheGrza 05:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. mcpusc 10:56, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wiki-books or the wiki cookbook (if there is one)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 10:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recipes and/or food descriptions are not encyclopedic. Transwiki if useful. It would be very cool to have a literal wikicookbook/wikifood that would handle food-related things in their entirety. While I think they don't belong at all to wikipedia, and think that wikibooks is an unfortunate comprimise, keeping the resource around in some form would be nice. --Improv 15:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is not too high and mighty to have articles on Brandy, Cognac, Liqueurs, Curacoa ("CURACOA, a liqueur, chiefly manufactured in Holland. It is relatively simple in composition, the predominating flavour being obtained from the dried peel of the Curacoa orange. The method of preparation is in principle as follows. The peel is first softened by maceration..."), Bun (700 words, "A small cake, usually sweet and round. In Scotland the word is used for a very rich spiced type of cake and in the north of Ireland for a round loaf of ordinary bread..."), Couscous, Pudding ("a dish consisting of boiled flour enclosing or containing meat, vegetables or fruit, or of batter, rice, sago or other farinaceous foods boiled or baked with milk and eggs. Properly a pudding should be one boiled in a cloth or bag. There are countless varieties, of which the most familiar are the Christmas plum-pudding, the Yorkshire pudding and the suet pudding...) Steak, and a 24,000-byte long article on "Cookery." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flaming_Dr._Pepper_(0th_nomination)&oldid=1248667762"