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 again. Sandstein 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backdraft (drink)

[edit]

Non-notable cocktail, no references. Previous AFD discussion closed with no consensus. Promised "documentation" has not been forthcoming, and the article is almost entirely statements that are likely to be impossible to verify using reliable sources. Quale 06:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 07:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. -- Samir धर्म 07:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - I agree that this article needs work. That is why the WikiProject Cocktails has it flagged for improvement. As it clearly states on the articles talk page, the Project members are currently working on cleaning up and improving a large number of articles. This one certainly qualifies as one worthy of keeping, and improving. Despite the fact that some may not have heard of this particularly showy drink, and despite the tone of the article (which I personally find highly irritating), the drink is very notable and rather unique. It could be argued that 50% or more of the various cocktail-related articles could be condensed down to a recipe. This is one cocktail that certainly could not qualify for that. First, the method of preparation is quite complicated and potentially dangerous. Second, the physics of the drink is included, making it remarkably interesting (despite the tone) compared to the hundreds of other drink articles I've been reading through. We have requested that everyone relax and let the Project members do their work on these articles without deleting them until we have had a chance to do whatever it is we need to do with them to make Wikipedia better. In many cases, that will be requesting deletion AFTER we merge the useful information into other articles (and figuruing out the best place to move it to is partly why it takes time). This is one article that I doubt would ever be considered for deletion due to the wonderful uniqueness of the drink AND its notability. Just because few people order one and suffer the effects of such a hideous drink does not mean it is not notable. Verifiability should be easy to do, but again, it takes time to sift through several hundred articles with a small team of people working on it. Instead of deleting clearly tagged WikiProject Cocktails articles while we are actively in this Cleanup Project, consider pitching in and helping us improve them. Thank you. --Willscrlt 07:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search returns:

Flaming Dr. Peppers - Check out those flames! (pretty much unrelated, but it mentioned Backdraft and flaming cocktails)

So, it would appear that after a quick 3-page search of google, there is definitely a drink (and fairly popular according to 1001 Cocktails) called a Backdraft. The ingredients, manner of preparation and presentation vary, and I could not find the exact methods mentioned in this article. However, it is still a fairly interesting cocktail, and with work (that I will be happy to do between now and February 28 2007, which is the deadline for completing the Cleanup Project), it could be a good article. So spare the article (again) and let the Project members (probably that will be me) have a chance to fix the article. Thanks. --Willscrlt 08:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not a repository for either food or drink recipes. Beyond that, you don't have very much except an entirely unreferenced article. I don't see how this is paticuarly notable either. Viridae ^Talk 11:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous AfD was only 1 month ago; Wikiproject Cocktails has set itself a deadline to clean up/merge/delete the various articles under their scope. This article is already being taken care of, there's no good reason to step on their toes. BCoates 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cocktails project should be given a chance to fix. If no progress after several months; let's review. Akihabara 13:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to b:Bartending. --Howrealisreal 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki-ing is one of the options we do consider in the WikiProject Cocktails Cleanup Project, especially for detailed recipes. Many wonderful people have done that before, and it has really been a benefit. However, there is more to this drink than a simple recipe. One thing I am considering is merging several smaller articles into one larger one discussing flaming cocktails and using specific examples. This article (with work) would fit that bill, but we need the extra time to complete this process. --Willscrlt 15:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would work. I tend to think that a cocktail needs to have something notable about it to be listed in Wikipedia. All else that can be verified can go to Wikibooks. If a case can be made that this cocktail is part of a larger notable method, then by all means keep in Wikipedia somewhere. Cheers. --Howrealisreal 15:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Admittedly, the majority of people researching drinks are doing so specifically to find a recipe. That's great. We can easily point them to the complete recipe archive in Wikibooks. However, a brief very listing of ingredients is actually helpful for distinguishing between the various drinks, much as the mollecular weight and other identifying aspects of a chemical compound or the characters in a film. Yes, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, but that does not mean it must exclude all references to the component ingredients that identify a particular beverage. What is important is that the article must be more than just a recipe or process by which to make the drink. The article should focus on the cultural and historical nature of the drink, for that is what exerts the notability of the drink. This particular drink is notable, I'm fairly sure, but the article is poorly written and does a lousy job of explaining or proving that. If it cannot be proved within a reasonable time, then deletion is one logical decision. I am not arguing with the deletion process; I am just concerned about the timing of this (and other) deletions in cocktail-related articles. Thanks. --Willscrlt 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until 2007-02-28 and revaluate. The arguments presented above and the first AfD have convinced me that the drink in question is unique enough from other cocktails that it may merit an article. If by the deadline the article is just a recipe, it should go. ccscott 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The existence of a wikiproject does not cause any given article within its scope to gain any sort of inherent encyclopedic value, which this article does not have. Agent 86 20:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant to claim that the Project should have any impact on the perceived value of an article. The article must be able to stand on its own just as any other article in the Wikipedia. I'm sorry if anything I said appeared to indicate otherwise. All I am requesting is a little time (and a definite time at that) in which to complete the research and improvement of this and the other articles on which the Project members are working. At the completion of the WikiProject Cocktails Cleanup Project, if it turns out that this article is still substandard, the Project will nominate the article (along with many other articles) for deletion and will offer no objection to deletion at that time. --Willscrlt 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of an article is not really a basis for deletion or retention. It is all about encyclopedic value. A well-written and well researched article can still fail the policies and guidelines for inclusion, while a poorly drafted article can still meet the criteria for inclusion. Agent 86 20:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. An article that requires three pages to print, is witty, provocative, titilating, and enjoyable to read about my right foot still does not belong in the Wikipedia no matter how important that appendage might be to me personally nor how well I write the article. The Backdraft (drink) is a fairly notable drink (not in the same league as a Martini or a Long Island Iced Tea, but then few drinks are. As long as the notability, popularity, and relevance of the drink can be established, and hopefully the tone quality of the written article is improved, I think the article deserves to be saved. Again, all I am asking is the time to figure out if that can be done through research (no, not "original research", but researching what's already out there). Come February 28th, if the article does not meet standards, I will be happy to nominate its deletion myself, because by then I will have had the opportunity to do the research necessary to make that determination and update the article or salvage any useful bits if that is more appropriate. It is not the deletion of the article for which I am objecting, but the haste in which the decision is being made. Just give the WikiProject Cocktails members the time to complete their work and help improve Wikipedia overall within our area of concentration. It is not an open-ended request, but one with a fixed deadline to complete the improvements. Is that too much to ask? --Willscrlt 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The world needs more variety! and a complete list of fun drinks sounds like a great place to start! SweetGodiva 22:27, 18 December 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.