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 no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carbomb (beer cocktail)

[edit]

Unreferenced, non notable "cocktail". Wikipedia is not a recipe book. John (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insignificant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the link provided above shows a decent (can be considered significant) amount of coverage. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some sourcing/significant coverage is found. Corpx (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per brewcrewer - whilst the sources are not cited in the article yet, they should be, to establish the notability that obviously exists. Passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Which sources would those be? --John (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, this for example.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would not regard that as satisfying WP:RS or WP:V. Of course, YMMV. --John (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is it that the above page which represents an excerpt from a major American City Newspaper not be a reliable source? Earthdirt (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "sources" look like blogs and the like,and fail WP:RS. The drink itself has no sourced notability. Heck, I could find you more printed sources than that about the Spayed Gerbil, but I'm not gonna assert ITS notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a standard Google search, it's Google News, and in my opinion almost everything in Google News is a reliable source, unlike Google search, if I'm not mistaken...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs sources but the subject is valid. There are pages on other drinks so why not this one? Georgiamonet (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.--John (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete mmm... It's a non notable cocktail. Or merge to Beer cocktail? OAS ^{talk to me} 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or merge with boilermaker Beach drifter (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a boilermaker (cocktail) is not really a cocktail it is a "beer and a shot", which is nothing like an Irish Car Bomb, which is much more like a "cement mixer" than anything else. Earthdirt (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm confused, how is a shot of irish whiskey dropped into a Guinness not a "beer and a shot"? Compare to cement mixer, which is one shot.Beach drifter (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename This drink is better known (at least in the US) as the "Irish Car Bomb" a google search for this provides many reliable recipie and bartending sites which site this noteworthy cocktail. Though this article currently lacks sources they could easily be added to make this a decent short article on a well known cocktail, thus my rational for keep is per WP:HEY in addition to the fact that it is plenty noteworthy. Earthdirt (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum and change to Strong Keep here is a google news search which provides half a dozen major American/British newspapers mentioning the "Irish Car Bomb" on the first page a lone. I think this puts it beyond question. Earthdirt (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is about centralizing all knowledge, stupid or not - I came here wondering what the hell was in a carbomb, and was dismayed to find the article marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrontius (talk • contribs) 20:12, 7 February 2008 (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.