Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boat drinks


 * 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Boat drinks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no sources which determines the notability of "boat drinks" which appears to be just a list of cocktails. Which Hazel? (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete "Boat drinks" aren't really a thing, just a constructed concept inspired by a song title. Or something.  Rcsprinter123    (note)  11:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There's an article on cocktails and there are many articles on individual cocktails. There should be articles on a this fairly signifcant class of cocktails. Does the article need improvement? Yes, particularly the history section. The problem is that there only two sources, Sven Kirsten and Jeff Barry, with slightly contradictory takes on the subject. Kirsten's position is that boat drinks are the result of cheap post-war alcohol being masked with fruit juice. Barry, who interviewed a large number of mixologists and bar tender from the original bars, suggests that they were invented pre-war, as fairly high-end cocktails. Does the article need a name change? Possibly. As noted in the early part of the article there are a lot of synonyms. Renaming the article "tiki drinks" would probably be the best choice.
 * Excpet this article is almost entirely original research. FWIW I found this because I watched Things to do in Denver, and the boat drinks referenced there does not relate to the content of this article.  This article is mostly shoehorned to fit a songs title. Even if it were to be de-buffeted, it's still rather lacking without sources.  Perhaps you should move it to user space and fix it there first?Which Hazel? (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination as original research. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 07:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-encyclopedic cross categorization. sst✈(discuss) 07:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.