Talk:Dr. McGillicuddy's

Schnapps?
I think of Dr. McGillicuddy's as being schnapps. What's the difference between a schnapps and a liqueur? Iamvered (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Schnapps article, a schnapps is a strong drink, and generally not especially sweet. See also the discussion of these terms in the Liqueur article. These "Dr. McGillicuddy's" products have low alcohol content and are rather sweet, so they better fit the definition of liqueur. In informal usage in some parts of the U.S. (as discussed in the Liqueur article), the two terms seem more interchangeable than they are elsewhere, but even if we go for that informal usage, the two terms become somewhat redundant. If they mean the same thing, the phrase "schnapps liqueur" becomes inappropriate by being redundant. I doubt that you can find that phrase in high-quality reliable sources (or at least suspect it would be extremely rare). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Schnapps article on Wikipedia, American Schnapps "are alcoholic beverages that are produced by mixing neutral grain spirit with fruit or other flavors. This mixture is then bottled with added sugar and (usually) glycerine, producing a smooth, syrup-like drink with an alcohol content of between 15% and 50% ABV (30–100 proof)." So would Dr. McGillicuddy's not fit that category?   Almost all of their labels bill themselves as "schnapps." Iamvered (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We, of course, should follow what we think is most accurate, not what the manufacturer prefers to say. Manufacturers have marketing departments that sometimes push the boundaries of accuracy to achieve their goals. Some examples of that are Sazerac's "Fireball Cinnamon Whisky", which clearly does not fit into any proper definition of whisky, and Brown-Forman's dogged insistence that Jack Daniels is not bourbon, despite the fact that it does fit into any reasonable definition of bourbon and is required by multiple laws to be bourbon (it's sort of like insisting that Cognac isn't brandy). My primary objection was that the usage of "schnapps liqueur" seems like a redundant phrase, sort of like "whisky distilled beverage" or "maize corn" or "soda soft drink", but I do think it is more accurate (especially for non-U.S. readers, per WP:COMMONALITY) to refer to these products as "liqueur" rather than "schnapps". —BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability and sources
Although the article cites a substantial quantity of sources, closer inspection reveals that it is really not adequately sourced per WP:Reliable sources and WP:GNG. The sources seem to all fall into the following categories: Regarding the last point above, note, in particular, that Fireball Cinnamon Whisky already has a separate article. To justify the presence of this article, we should have sources that discuss the other "Dr. McGillicuddy's" products in detail. See WP:GNG for general notability guidelines. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The manufacturer of the products itself
 * Commercial sites selling the product
 * Low-reliability blogs
 * Sources that are about something else, not about the products that are the main topic of the article
 * To speak of notability: This product is a major brand in the portfolio of Sazerac, a major international player in the beverage industry. It has been on the market for well more than 25 years.  It is distributed in all fifty U.S. States, and is in one of the 100 biggest-selling spirit brands in America as of 2013, with triple-digit growth in sales percentages: .  :As for reliability, when writing an article on a commercial product, is there a more authoritative source for general information about that product than the web site of the manufacturer?  The article makes no endorsement, and is written from a neutral point of view.  I don't say it's delicious, or will get you hammered, or cure cancer, I'm just saying it exists and is widely available enough that it may be of interest to people researching the liquor industry.  Can I catch a break?  Iamvered (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope you realize that I'm trying to help. I just think we should acknowledge the problems that exist in the article, and try to fix them. Also, that seems like a good source to cite, and I think I'll add it to the article if you don't. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to come off snitty. At the time of our last exchange I had largely given up on being a Wikipedia contributor because it had become so contentious. Anything you can do to improve the article is welcome.  I don't think that includes deleting it; the brand is viable and noteworthy due to its growth and popularity. I look to Wikipedia for things like, "Remember Zima?" and there it is. :-) Iamvered (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)