Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layton (cocktail)


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Layton (cocktail)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:ONEDAY. This drink was invented to honour the passing away of Jack Layton, who died two days ago (thereby inferring the drink was invented yesterday or so). PROD was disputed on the basis that there has been a lot of social media attention to this drink. While that may be true, tweets and blogs are not reliable sources to support notability. Singularity42 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — PK  T (alk)  23:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just delete it outright. I've come across the Facebook profile of the drink's "originator"; he's just doing it for the attention and as a joke, apparently. To have done this so soon after Jack Layton's death is in poor taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.47.24 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just cause some idiot is trying to get attention doesn't mean it's not a legitimate drink, I've heard of it being ordered across Canada, give it some time see if it maintains some traction.Xtopher (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Notability first, then article. Not the other way around.  The article says it was invented as a memorial to Layton, which means it was invented a few days ago.  WP:ONEDAY clearly applies. Singularity42 (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Expecting something to become notable is a form of WP:CRYSTALBALLing, and WP:DEADLINE applies in that an article shouldn't be created until it is ready. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - this is a hoax / bad joke.  PK  T (alk)  23:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per PKT. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  00:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete for the reasons above. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete - should probably be a speedy delete as a hoax. At best, it completely lack notability and has zero coverage in reliable sources. --  Transity  ( talk &bull;  contribs ) 11:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - coverage in social media aside, I have not seen anything in a reliable source (even as a passing mention). Would reconsider if such coverage was found. Canada Hky (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - lacks any notability and has zero coverage in reliable sources - A tiny blip in Canadian social media doesn't make it notable. MikeyMoose (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Come on, buzzkills. This is Wikipedia, not some trusted academic source. Live a little, or at least delete it for a real reason - who wants to drink Jack Daniels anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.7.83 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Drink is not notable, simple as that. -- Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 19:39, 27 August 2011 (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.