Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate chai


 * 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.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate chai

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:OR. Obscure recipes can themselves be original research and also, Sarsaparilla appears to be in violation of WP:POINT by making this argument to bait me. Zenwhat (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I considered tagging this when it got created but instead simply removed the link to a narcotics site. It looks to me a joke article. Ros0709 (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a joke. Sarsaparilla did it to bait me. To establish what I mean about the WP:POINT issue: I nominated Chocolate Thai for AfD a while back. Then, just recently, I nominated Sarsaparilla's article Theistic rationalism for AfD. She retaliated by creating this page, then leaving a snide remark on my talkpage about Chocolate Thai. Zenwhat (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the last time, I am a guy. Note the userbox on my page. Need I provide proof Wikimedia Commons style? Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:DELICIOUS. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm having trouble assuming good faith about this nomination; as the guy's own userpage shows, he himself has been known to indulge in a nice cold refreshing glass of chocolate chai once in awhile. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no such thing as WP:DELICIOUS and anyhow it is not a valid reason to keep a nonsense article.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It clearly does not meet the criteria of being nonsense, of which there are only two categories:
 * Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "akdjaioodjosfd5sdgjgdsiu489eh4 ohe89dsgjoisdjgo4dgsjha[j'z", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.
 * Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.
 * Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The reference to adding THC is what finally convinced me that this wasn't serious. The two references are respectively to a cookie and a custard, while the article is discussing a drink. No reliable sources to show notability, and the burden of Avoid neologisms has not been met. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah c'mon it's got unique google hits out the wazoo. Chocolate chai is not just one type of drink but it's a flavor used in many different foods - cake, pudding, ice cream, etc. http://www.homebasics.ca/viewrecipe.asp?recipeId=3111 Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2008 (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.