Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish breakfast


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Finnish breakfast

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Self-admitted newly invented cocktail, article creator is trying to use Wikipedia as a medium to gain notability for the drink. It's fairly obvious it's not yet notable, so therefore the article should be deleted. J I P | Talk 17:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Step 2 of AfD process was not completed correctly. It has been fixed. KuyaBriBri Talk 18:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I never made the cocktail, I had it at a bar, wanted some backstory on it, did extensive research. The sources are all people whom i discussed the drink with, so I couldn't really cite them. I figured it would be a good idea to at least get someting started on the drink and its origins, so other people don't have the same problem as me, and isn't that sort of the whole point of wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkadellicFRED (talk • contribs) 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You know Fred, I used to think that was the point of wikipedia as well, but its not, because as an encyclopedia it tries to cover things that can be independently verified, and this cannot. You can blog about it, discuss it in forums, etc., but wikipedia is not the original source for things like this.--Milowent (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Searching for "Finnish breakfast" yields hits, but none of them are about a cocktail.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable cocktail. However, it really is a good idea to finish breakfast. Mandsford (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I guess that all makes sense, but it is a drink, so it should at the very least go on the list,even if it doesn't have its own article. Can we at least agree on that?FunkadellicFRED (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be mentioned on a list, it's just not notable for its own article. There are some persons, of course, who believe that a list should only invite the "cool kids" and that we should censor anything that doesn't have its own blue link.  That's something that has zero basis in policy, kind of an anal approach to an encyclopedia.  chances are, they wouldn't know what "q.v." means even if they ever looked at an article in the Britannica, but not everything in an article has to be q.v.  My view is that if it's not a blue link, leave it black, don't make it a red link, throw in a cite to a source.  Luckily, their right to edit is no greater than your right to edit.  Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (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.