- Spicy Fifty (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The argument here was basically whether a stringent reading of sourcing requirements should apply to a cocktail that has IBA recognition and received some independent coverage but not book length type stuff. I also made the argument that in the presence of the IBA recognition, the GNG’s approximation of real world notice isn’t strictly necessary since we have the professional body associated with it giving us proof it’s notable, and that as something not subject to promotion or BLP concerns, we don’t need to have as in-depth coverage as you’d expect from a BLP or corporation. Both the closer and one of the relisters acknowledged this as possibly being a strong argument.It was closed as merge on the grounds that an extraordinary consensus was needed to IAR, despite the fact that there wasn’t a consensus to delete; merging hadn’t been mentioned; the merge topic article isn’t fit for a merge right now; and the fact that several of us did look at sourcing and consider it sufficient given the topic area. King of Hearts argued that was stretching the GNG too far, but that was the majority position. While policy-based arguments should be given weight, the GNG is not a policy, and it’s frequently subject to interpretation at a topic level basis. In this case, there wasn’t a consensus to delete, and a merger discussion could occur on the talk page if it were warranted.Lacking a suitable merge topic at this time, the fact that an analysis of the importance of a topic was done both via GNG and by other means, and because the content discussion does not require an AfD close, this should be overturned to no consensus and any merger discussion can take place on the relevant talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I haven't yet decided how I feel about that discussion, I've got to express my sympathy with the poor sysop who finds themselves closing it. It's virtually un-closeable, and we wouldn't normally relist a fourth time. Notability is a guideline rather than a policy but we usually do say it takes an extraordinary consensus to IAR it, which is basically because the ARS exists and block-votes. Merging is clearly the right outcome --- but the hell of it is that nobody except the closer said so. Ugh. I'm reluctant to overturn to no consensus because that puts an article in the mainspace when the consensus seems to be that it can't be properly sourced with inline citations.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the problem is there’s no place to merge it. The target is completely unsuitable for it and would have to be entirely reworked. This is mentioned in the close as there being no deadline, but I’m a big believer in the idea that you shouldn’t have a close that can’t be implemented easily. The problem here is that deletion is clearly the wrong outcome and harmful to the reader. It really wasn’t mentioned in the discussion, and you don’t need an AfD close for that outcome. Now you have a banner on an article effectively indefinitely. Keeping it in name space when it’s sourced well enough for what it is doesn’t cause any harm, and if someone wants to rework the list article they can and then merge boldly or after talk discussion, that’s fine. It shouldn’t be a mandate from the AfD though. The situation isn’t straightforward and the close right now isn’t possible to implement. That’s basically the situation that no consensus exists for. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We can also just redirect it without merging (for now). However, people do seem to favor the content staying on Wikipedia in some form, just not as a separate article. So until List of IBA official cocktails is prepared to receive the merge, I think letting readers see the content is more beneficial than directly redirecting to a bare entry in a list that doesn't describe what the cocktail is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Both redirecting and deleting would not be in line with consensus. If people want to merge and discuss the specifics of the merge, that can be done on the talk page after the list I’d changed, if it ever is. I agree it’s most beneficial for readers to see it, but the merge template is pretty harmful to the reader experience. If a merge is needed can be discussed on the talk page, like merges normally are. It might be a good idea, but there certainly wasn’t consensus for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse although there is definitely scope for deletion discussions to make exceptions to the notability guidelines, I would expect that for this to happen that position should be persuasive in the discussion. This one wasn't, and Mz7 made a solid argument against it. Nobody did mention a merge, but it does definitely look like a good outcome, and is a compromise between keep and delete. We do often merge articles which pass a subject-specific notability guideline but fail the GNG (e.g. WP:BIO recommends this). Furthermore the major reason we have the GNG is that if a subject doesn't meet it then it's difficult to write a policy-compliant article which isn't very small, which also suggests a merge. Hut 8.5 12:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from closer: Note that Mz7 did in fact suggest a merge in the text of their comment, despite what their bolded !vote said. !votes to delete on notability grounds are simply saying that the subject does not deserve an independent article, and can be counted towards a result of merge or redirect if they do not argue why the content is inappropriate or why the target is not suitable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is sufficient but not necessary; however, there was no consensus for a merge or anything else and I would overturn to no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: That is only true when there is a relevant SNG; then, a subject can be notable by satisfying either criteria. However, there is no SNG for food and drink; I underweighted the "keep" !votes who were trying to invent one on the spot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SNGs are developed on the spot always. They’re basically just a summation of past precedents at AfD. Arguments to avoid is just an essay, and there actually can be valid OSE arguments. In this case the OSE is that we typically don’t delete IBA cocktails as evidenced by the fact that we have so many similar articles with similar sourcing. Consensus by existence is a valid type of consensus just as much as consensus by discussion. The consensus process works the opposite of how you’re describing: we decide locally for a norm in specific cases, and then build up from that to document it as a community standard after we have enough examples of why it is needed. Requiring an SNG first when there are good reasons to overlook the GNG and there is not support for a GNG based deletion is overweighting a guideline in a way it is not typically applied. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, TonyBallioni's argument at AfD was well made. If I was judging based on "how well formed" the argument was, that would be the clear winner. He managed to get me to believe something I really hadn't before (that things that don't really come close to meeting the GNG can have good reasons to exist here as stand-alone articles) and may be the best comment on notability on Wikipedia I've seen in years. Second of all, I agree with the closer that there wasn't enough of a consensus for an IAR outcome. Third, I don't like having just *one* of these drinks not have an article. That seems untidy if nothing else. If I'd been there to !vote, I'd have gone with "IAR keep". If I'd been trying to close it, I wouldn't have and would instead have gone with !voting. But I can't say the closer is wrong here. I don't like the outcome, but it is a reasonable outcome from that discussion. So weak endorse I guess. I'd suggest a way forward of creating an SNG on the topic of food and drink? Long way around, I know. But I think any reasonable SNG will likely have this allowed. If I were Wikipedia King, I'd take all the "not really notable" drinks and put them on one page with a section each and links from the list to each section. But oddly they keep forgetting to hold my coronation. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus. This was a blatant supervote because there were 6 keeps, 3 deletes and nobody but nobody talked about merger until the closer pulled it out of his cocktail shaker. If the topic was to be merged then it might make more sense to merge to the home of the cocktail: 50 St James's Street. But that's a matter of ordinary editing and all we need to settle here is that there was no consensus to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- seems a fair reading of the debate given the strength of the arguments that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Reyk YO! 15:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but Vodka cocktail may be a more suitable merge target. Closure was appropriate with no automatic notability for such drink recipes. Reywas92Talk 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I voted delete in this discussion, and personally I believe the merge outcome is a fair assessment of the discussion. King of Hearts correctly notes above that I did mention including more details about the cocktail in List of IBA official cocktails as a possibility, even though I supported deletion as my bolded !vote. In my view, the keep arguments improperly assessed the topic of the article based on personal standards of usefulness and importance, rather than Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do think, however, that the fundamental point raised in the keep section—the idea that we are a reference source, and readers looking for information about IBA official cocktails might expect it here—supports the "merge" closure. While I am aware of TonyBallioni's dislike towards the WP:GNG, I don't fully share his view. As I stated in the discussion I was not entirely convinced that the drink's IBA "new era drink" distinction was enough to override the GNG on an WP:IAR basis (though it may be different for the "contemporary classics" and "unforgettable" IBA categories—potentially a discussion to have for the Wikipedia:Notability (food and drink) SNG proposed by Hobit above), and no one in the discussion really made a convincing keep argument in the context of WP:GNG. I will start working on the merge tonight. Mz7 (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: I have now refactored List of IBA official cocktails such that it became able to accept the content of Spicy Fifty. Accordingly, I carried out the merge and redirected Spicy Fifty to the list. Mz7 (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The close was appropriate - it's clear from discussion the drink doesn't meet WP:GNG, which means it doesn't qualify for a stand-alone page in spite of the IAR argument. (If the IBA cocktails was a significant list, the cocktails should be significantly covered somewhere.) It's also non-controversial and likely appropriate to merge the information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus The arguments for keeping were articulated by a majority of the participants. TonyBallioni gave a coherent rationale and others gave relevant opinions. The closer chose a side when arguments for an against were of equal merit. Wm335td (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I voted keep, but I agree this is a fair reading of the discussion. PainProf (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus - there would good reasons to seek out a merge result, but for the close to just generate it was incorrect. They should have participated and added an additional !vote. Obviously the deletes had reasonable policy, and the keeps (primarily via TB) had a well-formed IAR argument. I don't see delete or keep being most accurate. If we hadn't already had three relists I'd have suggested another, but I think a no consensus is the way to go. If editors wish to propose a merge, then that is obviously fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
