Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. This discussion is a dog's breakfast, and illustrates how little consensus we have as a project, in practice, about the inclusion criteria for lists. Numerically, opinions are nearly equally divided. I have my own views about who has the stronger arguments, but because the relative vagueness of our rules and practices regarding lists, it's really difficult for me to give more weight to one side's views or the other's. The list is therefore kept by default only.  Sandstein  06:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

List of breakfast drinks
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no strong criteria over what drinks are included in the list and what are not. Plus Wikipedia is NOT a list or repositories of loosely associated topics Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC) " is a dedicated, fantastic editor. The articles he produces are always high quality and this is no exception. -- below"
 * Comment I see a very strong case of WP:OWN going on with this article with many users unduly praising User:Andrew_Davidson and User:Northamerica1000 for their "excellent sources"

"Strong keep an encyclopedic and policy compliant topic, as demonstratd by the Colonel. As a member of wiki project Breakfast, I couldn't agree less with the view that the article content is low quality. It's a very nice article, I see it's benefited from considerable editing from our founding member, NorthAmerica1000 themselves - at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_breakfast_drinks" --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 I'm going to copy and paste some of the comments from Talk:List_of_breakfast_drinks, which I think highlight issues with the article:
 * "Regarding the article, it is surprising how difficult it is to find reliable sources that verify beverages as specific common breakfast drinks. --"


 * " Indeed, the AfD was a bit of a mockery regarding inclusion criteria."..."Actually, with the current "definitions" (as is found in the article), it could even be taken a step further by interpreting a "breakfast drink" to be a drink which constitutes breakfast, in which case I can prove that Budweiser can serve as a breakfast drink --"


 * "...At the moment, it's kind of stating the obvious. "Here is a list of drinks, a drink being a liquid, that people consume at breakfast, being the first meal of the day". --"


 * --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

List of breakfast related item deletions:
 * A similiar list List of breakfast foods is also up for deletion. See Articles for deletion/List of breakfast foods. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of breakfast foods
 * Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Index of breakfast-related articles
 * Articles for deletion/List of breakfast cereals


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 00:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep It's only a few days since the previous AfD was closed as a Keep. Per WP:DELAFD, "it can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was re-opened because there is a spat over the inclusion criteria. Also, the article is very dubious at best as to drinks count as breakfast drink. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also there is a very strong sense of WP:OWN going on in the article based on the comment at Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks: "The Colonel is Andrew D, one of Wikipedia's most scholarly editors."
 * WP:OWN states "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The page has existed since 2013 but I only edited it for the first time a few minutes ago and so the claim of ownership behaviour is absurd. It seems more relevant to note that, before editing the article in question, I opposed Tyw7's AfD nomination: Articles for deletion/Wie Wahrnehmung sich erfindet (2nd nomination).  Please see WP:HOUNDING. Andrew D. (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Erm how is this WP:HOUNDING? Did you notice who nominated the articles?  Of course I'm going to watch AFDs I myself have started.  Admittedly I did watch Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks as it seemed interesting.  I came on that article as it was sorted into the "not sorted" catagory.  And if you look at Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks I was the one sorting that article into categories.  So this is in no way WP:HOUNDING or WP:STALKING you. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, it is clear that Tyw7 is well aware that we have recently concluded an AfD discussion for this topic. My !vote of Speedy Keep stands per WP:SKCRIT, "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion". Andrew D. (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well if you see Talk:List_of_breakfast_drinks, there was a big spat over what should be included. This list is so vague over what counts as breakfast drinks. Therefore, it fails WP:LISTN.  Plus, it is failing WP:NOTDIR too. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That discussion is still open and we don't start an AfD every time there's a discussion on an article's talk page. Per WP:FORUMSHOP, "It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that discussion is one indication that perhaps the list's scope is too wide to deserve its own article. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that discussion is one indication that perhaps the list's scope is too wide to deserve its own article. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an almost random list of things that might be consumed in the morning - most of which have no special association with morning and/or breakfast at all. Therein lies its problem - the concept of a "breakfast drink" is so ill-defined that pretty much anything could go in; the article on breakfast shows pretty clearly the subject is too wide and varied. Dorsetonian (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as a random list. We already have List of drinks, which makes this one obsolete. Merge with Breakfast if needed. -- » Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  09:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK that is a better list. It's narrower in focus. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK. The article was retained after the last AfD discussion that was closed about a week ago. Also, I recommend that delete !voters herein check out the sources in the article verifying that said beverages are typical and common at breakfast, in the event that this has not occurred. North America1000 12:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This should not be speedy keep as I have posted in the relevant talk page to try to get a wider audience. The previous deletion might not have had such a wide audience. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – An idea is to rename the article to List of common breakfast drinks. Of course, some of these beverages are consumed at other times of the day, but they are all very commonly and typically consumed at breakfast. North America1000 13:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That might be better as it narrows the scope. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This edit also highlights an issue with the article. The reference indicates that Olive Oil is drunk as a breakfast drink in some country but it was removed. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Beer is "very commonly and typically consumed at breakfast"? The article itself specifically associates this tradition with medieval Britain and says the tradition died out 300 years ago. The "olive oil" entry is clear OR that contradicts the cited sources, one of which doesn't mention either breakfast traditions or the Mediterranean (instead recommending its anglophone readers should have a shot of olive oil in the morning) and the other attributing it specifically to the fishermen of Crete in the 1960s. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's a hard one. We should not have a list of any old liquid that some source says some people drink at breakfast. That's a WP:NOT and WP:SAL problem, as it's indiscriminate and unusefully broad. I am under the impression, however, that there is a retail product category called "breakfast drink" such that it may be possible for an inclusion criteria to be specified. I'm struggling to come up with one, though, as what defines something accordingly is more about its marketing than about any sort of real practice preceding the marketing. Looking at the Amazon section, just for a quick look, I see that all sorts of beverages are included -- practically any beverage in fact. If there were an inclusion criteria, it would need to be based on the phrase "breakfast drink" but I'm not so confident that phrase is used consistently, leading again to an indiscriminate list. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe create an article called Breakfast drink that describes what it is and gives a few examples? --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. While it has been used to be indiscriminate and overly broad, if proper sourcing is applied to show what it is a breakfast drink. Plus, commercial brand names for some drinks (Nesquick for hot chocolate) if there is a generic name should be dropped. Amazon is not a good source for determining that said category exists or what should exist in it. If need be the article should be renamed to add "common". Spshu (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep is a dedicated, fantastic editor. The articles he produces are always high quality and this is no exception. This article passes a source review and ensures the importance of breakfast drinks. With 54 sources and a description of each drink, this article ensures readers of the role beverages play in morning hours. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So? Just because he says something, doesn't make it true.  WP:OWN reads " No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say." --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Its not just because of that. The article is fully sourced and recently has been cleaned up. Breakfast drinks are important and a list of them shows the many uses and history of breakfast drinks. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well as it currently stands, the article fails WP:NOTDIR. It just seems like a list of loosely related drinks that might be drunk at breakfast by some people. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion. But, this article provides adequate sourcing for all its drinks. It doesn't just "list loosely related drinks that might be drunk"; It lists drinks that are Proven to be drunk. And it is not "loosely related", They are all breakfast drinks. AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DYK: "peafowl is also very tasty, with the breast meat making great schnitzel – just don’t overcook it!" Hunting Peafowl -- DexterPointy (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I still stand by the views I presented in the 1'st AfD, and as for what else:
 * Regarding: 2'nd AfD trailing a 1'st AfD: It's true that a 2'nd can be disruptive, but false that it always is disruptive. In this particular case, then: No Speedy Closure, because
 * The 1'st AfD garnered fairly little attention: 4 people in total; - one (me) being the nominator, - one (Northamerica1000) being the article's creator & primary content generator (almost all work was done in 2013) - one (Andrew D.) being referred to as "The Colonel" & "one of Wikipedia's most scholarly editors" (referred to as such by user FeydHuxtable) Note: Andrew D. either ignored the article's content, or was (for unknown reasons) simply unavailable for answering to such (I imagine real life isn't just an imagination) . - one (FeydHuxtable) who did truly not seem to have any history with the article. The resulting AfD outcome, the consensus of 3-to-1, was anything but strong.
 * This 2'nd AfD is not unreasonable, because: Almost immediately after the 1'st AfD closed (~48 hours after), the lack of attention changed; and new additional users suddenly showed up on talk pages and/or further in this 2'nd AfD (so far, at least 7 more: Rhododendrites, Dorsetonian,  Ritchie333, Tyw7,  Shadowowl,  Spshu, AmericanAir88).
 * -- DexterPointy (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DexterPointy was canvassed by the nominator, who selected seven editors who had all !voted to delete a different food list:      . Andrew D. (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Erm no... Articles for deletion/List of foods by calorie is kinda related to this. And EVERYONE there voted delete, so you can't single him out.  See also these:
 * .
 * Also, the wording was chosen to be as neutral as possible.
 * As you can see I try to get a wider audience for this request. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And did you see who started Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks. Of course, the nominator of the first request would be interested in the second request. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If I was canvassing why would I notify User:FeydHuxtable? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFeydHuxtable&type=revision&diff=851756523&oldid=851628284. He voted keep. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DexterPointy (me) was NOT canvassed This 2'nd AfDs diff by 20180723T2339Z: That mentioning caused WP to alert me. If that's canvassing, then Northamerica1000 and Ritchie333 was equally canvassed, and that earlier than you (Andrew D.) allege. Grief, whatever happened to diligence ... Burn the witch! :-( -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And did you see who started Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks. Of course, the nominator of the first request would be interested in the second request. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If I was canvassing why would I notify User:FeydHuxtable? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFeydHuxtable&type=revision&diff=851756523&oldid=851628284. He voted keep. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DexterPointy (me) was NOT canvassed This 2'nd AfDs diff by 20180723T2339Z: That mentioning caused WP to alert me. If that's canvassing, then Northamerica1000 and Ritchie333 was equally canvassed, and that earlier than you (Andrew D.) allege. Grief, whatever happened to diligence ... Burn the witch! :-( -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete not going to wikilawyer as to why this should or shouldn't be an article. It's just not an encyclopedic topic and demeans wikipedia by its inclusion Lyndaship (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Little excessive there Lynda. One article thats not your liking does not "demean" the encyclopedia. AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , please show a little bit more decorum. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * delete. Not a good list topic, as is clear from the contents. Supposedly a link of notable drinks that are consumed at breakfast it includes some historic ones, some without articles so non-notable, with entirely arbitrary inclusion criteria. Anything can be drunk at breakfast, there is no way to compile an accurate or representative list.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 21:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. A historical section can be added to seperate out those. Reliable sourcing is not "arbitrary" unless you want to call WP completely "arbitrary" and ask for its deletion. Spshu (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral, but... Andrew Davidson, please stop attacking the nominator. I received a similar notification, but I am not going to !vote one way or the other because I am neutral on whether this list should be kept/deleted/redirected/merged/moved-and-refocused/whatevered. I don't know if you automatically show up and !vote one way or the other when you receive such notifications, or you expect others to do so when you send them, but it is a violation of WP:AGF to assume others will when the notifications are sent by people who disagree with you. Your carefully leaving me out of the list of "canvassed" editors makes it clear that you were listing them specifically to give the false impression that editors who were notified were selected specifically based on their prior !voting record in similar AFDs. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the "speedy keep" comments should be treated as simple "keep". The nominator clearly expressed a valid concern about the previous nomination that would justify another nomination after even a short time, and here's another one: of the three "keep" !votes (3-1 is a very weak consensus, by the way) one ignored a legitimate questioning of their !vote rationale for more than six days until the discussion was closed (and it might be pointed out that the same user rarely gives any recognition to such questions, apparently with the intention of avoiding both changing his !vote and having his argument being dismissed by the closer as having been discredited), and another showed up after seven days had passed, was similarly questioned, and then a few hours later the discussion was closed; in this light closing as "keep" rather than "no consensus" is somewhat unusual. If DexterPointy had renominated rather than following the proper procedure outlined at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that might have been grounds for a speedy keep, but the nominator was a third party uninvolved in the previous discussion, had legitimate concerns with the previous discussion, and had new reasons for deletion based on events that had taken place since the previous close. NA1000's saying that the nomination is unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion is bordering on AGF-violation. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Well now it seems uninvolved editors had been voting as delete rather than keep. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unsurprising, honestly. Of the three people who !voted "keep" in the last AFD, two only ever !vote keep except perhaps in very rare occasions that I've been unable to locate, and of those two at least one has a habit of !voting "keep" any time he thinks he can get at least a "no consensus" result, so their having !voted keep honestly says almost nothing about how any random uninvolved editor would !vote. All that said, I'm still not convinced one way or the other, and I would appreciate your respecting my decision on that front. If you experience any more personal attacks or harassment from other editors, I would be happy to chime in and defend you, but I don't want to get in an argument (even one I know I can "win") over an article that I don't even have an opinion on. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It was just a comment based on an observation. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP is not meant to be a collection of indiscriminate lists. What a breakfast drink is is subjective...is anything that someone has drunk at breakfast and written about a breakfast drink? More importantly: who does this help? Who could ever possibly want to see a list of breakfast drinks, and how does it help in understanding any topic? I don't know anything about the prior AFD, but that is my opinion. For me WP is not something you throw things against to see what sticks - a list should have clear inclusion criteria, which includes a reason for existing; discussion somewhere as an important topic. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  01:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Regarding the notion above, "Who could ever possibly want to see a list of breakfast drinks, and how does it help in understanding any topic?", the page has received 5,443 page views in the last 90 days (as of this post), and the list serves as a navigational aid as per WP:LISTPURP. Per the number of page views, it's obvious that many readers have wanted to see such a list. North America1000 08:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Among those views some two dozen, at the very least, are mine. It's a habit I have of examining and re-examining the material on which I offer suggestions. I'd imagine the same goes for my fellow contributors. In other words, the time when an article is up for AfD is probably not the best time for informative measurements of popularity. That's one point.
 * The other point is that viewer frequency is not to be confused with notability, and especially not with Wikipedian value. We could post up an article today about a sensationalist subject (I'm leaving specifics to the readers' imagination) and garner a huge load of views, yet the subject would probably be unworthy of an article. So, the rhetorical question "Who could ever possibly want to see a list of breakfast drinks?" stands. It indirectly denotes the utter lack of encyclopaedic value of this list. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; not a depository of indiscriminate information. -The Gnome (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. about North America's claim that the list can serve as "a navigational aid": How's that exactly? A user looking for breakfast drinks would head for the eponymous article. (It's not here but it should be. Yet, a list is no substitute for an article!) The user would get practically zero information from this list, since all it takes for an item to get into it is a source claiming this or that liquid edible can be a breakfast drink. This is a very lame criterion. -The Gnome (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is just an indiscriminate list with a bunch of arbitrary references stating that they 'might' be consumed for breakfast. Hardly encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete because every morning, like so many people, I drink for breakfast one fresh ostrich-egg mixed with elephant milk, and my drink's not mentioned here, so the article can't be right. And if that's not acceptable, I call upon WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (burp) -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a list of Every breakfast drink. This is a list of traditional and cultural breakfast drinks that have been proven to be a breakfast drink. Elephant milk isn't on List of drinks either, so are you going to complain there as well? I see what you are trying to say but it does not prove that the article should be deleted. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you calling me a fantasist? Or an original worker? I'll decide which is worse, you know. -The Gnome(talk) 21:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not calling you anything, I am just defending this article. Lets all calm down, I do not want to start a fight. If you see the page views and the importance of every item, it shows why this list is needed on wikipedia. is right, list of drinks is essentially a list of lists. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a lame attempt at a semi-joke, AmericanAir88. Forgot the smiley, so here 'its. . -The Gnome (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Gee, there is an entry called "Juice" to some extent your drink is covered. Plus, do you,, have a reliable source for it being at least a regional common breakfast drink. Adding your drink would be a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR with out a source instead of your false claim of the lack of its inclusion. Spshu (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I adding a bunch of new citations and cleaned the article up a bit. I will try my hardest to save this important article. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So ... you fixed the article by removing the claim that a certain beverage is a "common breakfast drink" and simply claiming it is a fruit juice drink, with a source that assumes it is consumed at breakfast without actually saying anything about the history and significance of this tradition? This kind behaviour is making me want to !vote delete just so as not to encourage it down the line in other articles. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete As a redundant fork of List of drinks and all it's pages. -- » Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  15:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – List of drinks is essentially a lists of lists and main topics article; due to the high number of drinks in existence, the List of drinks article is limited to being organized categorically, based upon the main subcategories within the Drinks category page, along with information about primary topics and list article links. It's unclear how the article could be considered as a redundant content fork, because many of the entries in the breakfast drinks article are not even listed on the list page. North America1000 08:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – Also, I have struck the second delete !vote posted directly above by Shadowowl, who has already opined with a delete !vote earlier in the discussion (above). Only one actual !vote is allowed, but commentary has no such restrictions. North America1000 15:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The content of the list meets WP:LISTN as it is about a list topic which has reliable sources as a defined set. Objections noted above use inappropriate guidelines such as WP:NOTDIR, WP:OR, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply stating a list is indiscriminate does not in itself make it so, especially when there are reliable sources which deal with the list as a defined set. Breakfast drinks is a more closely defined set list than Drinks. In order to decide if a list meets Wikipedia criteria we look to reliable sources. If there are no sources which discuss the set list, then the list is not notable. If there are sufficient reliable sources, then the list is notable. Problems in the list, such as lack of sources, or poor presentation, etc, which can be addressed by editing, are not grounds for deletion. Here is a random selection of sources found with a simple Google search for "breakfast drinks":, , , , ,   , , , , . Some books: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink, Completely Breakfast, Contemporary Nutrition for Latinos, Ullmann's Food and Feed, Fruit Processing, etc. This is just a quick and dirty search to indicate that the list topic of "breakfast drinks" is treated and discussed as a set by reliable sources - more detailed research would be needed to find appropriate sources to use to define and construct the list. But the topic is certainly valid. SilkTork (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the "delete" !voters saying the list is indiscriminate, but I, despite not actually having an opinion on whether the page is worth keeping, know it is. Look at the "grapefruit juice" entry, which is cited to two sources, neither of which actually call it a common breakfast drink. I've been waking myself up with Coca-Cola for the last coupla days (long story: basically I bought too much of the stuff for a party and wound up having a lot of leftovers after I'd run out of coffee) but that doesn't mean it deserves an entry on the list, and a bunch of the current ones seem to be just as bad. The list also indiscriminately mixes historical breakfast drinks (beer, salep) with modern ones (OJ), and drinks that are breakfast drinks in some cultures but not others with drinks that are breakfast drinks in others but not some cultures, without noting as much (lassi, salep), and a bunch of the longer descriptions (OJ, coffee) have nothing to do with breakfast. There are other problems, too, for example the implication that "choi" is a particular kind of Tajik tea, when in fact anyone who knows the history of the word (or just translations in a whole bunch of European and Asian languages) could easily guess that "choi" is just the Tajik word for "tea". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but editing problems in an article or list are generally not grounds for deletion - we mostly decide based on notability. See WP:DEL-REASON and WP:AADD (in particular WP:SURMOUNTABLE). There are no BLP or CopyVio issues here, and there are reliable sources to provide sourced material and to give structure and form to the list. If the list is poorly defined (and I would dispute that, as it is self-defining) then the response is to tighten the definition rather than delete. That's what our guidelines say. SilkTork (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hijiri88, Reread "Breakfast: A History", it states "The juice from grapefruits is another morning favorite." One can reasonable infer "common breakfast drink" from "another morning favorite". Salep is noted as being a historical and regional/cultural breakfast drink and Lassi is noted as being an India one. And there are such things as sections. Spshu (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but color me unimpressed, SilkTork.
 * -The first piece is from the blog iFocusHealth. It's advice about healthy stuff to drink with your breakfast. And, again, it's a blog. We don't take too kindly on blogs as sources.
 * -The next one, from William Reed's Beverage Daily, defines breakfast drinks "as any products that are marketed as ‘formulated supplementary food’ and aim to replace a traditional meal, usually breakfast, with a liquid on-the-go option." Which is an enormously wide net with an enormously wide catch. A list of infinite wonders, since all it takes for a liquid edible is to be "marketed" as breakfast.
 * -Third on the list is this piece from Food & Wine about, again, the "best breakfast drinks" including Apple-Celery Juice with Ginger and Parsley, the Açai Super Smoothie "beloved by surfers," and my favorite, the Carrot-Mango Lassi. Yes, all the links are red. You can figure out why.
 * -We go on with The Grocer wondering if the breakfast drinks' market will hit some monetary point in size in the future (£100mln). So, there is a breakfast-drinks market after all! Who would've guessed. Sarcasm intended.
 * The point is this: No one disputes that drinks exist that qualify, in whatever arbitrary or nutritional or fashion way, as breakfast drinks. Breakfast drinks do exist! And we should probably have an article titled "Breakfast drink", or, better yet, a section in the Breakfast article. What we do not need, since it serves no encyclopaedic purpose whatsoever, is a list of breakfast drinks, because the criteria for inclusion are so vague and arbitrary that the list is practically useless. (E.g. a TV character would imbibe some wild drink for breakfast and that concoction would then qualify.) Per WP:SALAT, we do not need topics [that] are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. It cannot be seriously argued that user knowledge is amplified by a list of breakfast drinks.
 * Lastly and equally importantly, per WP:CSC, we're supposed to draw up lists by factor[ing] in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists. It cannot be driven home more forcefully. -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * delete ha, this is not a list of breakfast drinks. It is a list of drinks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Its a branched article for a reason. Its meant to be a split from the original list to improve navigation and reduce the size of the original list. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – Curious how User:DexterPointy recently nominated the article for deletion (diff) stating in part at the first AfD discussion that the content was "dubious" (link), then added content to the article after it was retained about two not-so-common, dubious breakfast beverage, (olive oil, diff, and urine, diff), adds the urine entry again after a user reverted it (diff) and then opines herein afterward about how the article is no good. Another editor has since removed the olive oil entry, since it's not a relatively common breakfast beverage (diff), and the urine entry has also been removed again (diff). Sure this could be interpreted as potential gaming, but is it? Conversely, this could also be seen as an attempt to improve the article. Is adding a dubious entry to an article after nominating it for deletion in part for being "dubious", and then agreeing with the article's deletion afterward also dubious? No offense intended, and not trying to spread any bad vibes, but just saying. Anyway, if the article is retained, sure it could be pruned and significantly improved, but I'm not going to bother doing so unless it is retained. Perhaps a more generic article, titled Breakfast drink is in order instead, if anyone comes around to actually write it. North America1000 15:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's plain disingenuous! You were part of the 1'st AfD, where olive oil was mentioned as an example of what could go onto the list, and you were also part of the later "Inclusion criteria" discussion on the Talk-page. You therefore full well know that the additions of "Olive oil" and "Urine" was made in a reductio ad absurdum argument to prove the untenable scoping/definition which existed at that time in the articles' lead. You also full well know that "common" was NOT part of the article's scoping/definition at time of adding "Olive oil" and "Urine", and you certainly know that, because it was YOU who later added "common" to the lead. -- DexterPointy (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I work in many various areas, and I'm not required to constantly entertain your ideas and entries on the page, at the previous AfD discussion, etc. You seem very eager to have the article deleted after you worked to expand it, which I find to be a bit curious and unusual. Furthermore, I don't plan on devoting much more time to this article at this point, unless it is retained, then perhaps, but I am not obligated to do so. I always felt that it was obvious that the list is for common breakfast drinks, but users herein have stated concerns about the list being indiscriminate, so it seems like common sense for my addition of "consisting of beverages that are commonly consumed at breakfast" (diff) to the article. Please also read WP:AVOIDYOU. North America1000 17:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:LISTN. Google Scholar shows 714 exact-phrase matches for the term "breakfast drinks," and many of the search results are studies that discuss various breakfast drinks as a group or set. Examples:
 * ANS Responses and Facial Expressions Differentiate between the Taste of Commercial Breakfast Drinks
 * Choosing breakfast: How well does packet information on Australian breakfast cereals, bars and drinks reflect recommendations?
 * Evoked Emotions Predict Food Choice
 * This list should be trimmed down to just the entries that are classified as breakfast drinks by reliable sources. —  Newslinger  talk   16:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, dear Newslinger, the sources you just cited too indicate the utter arbitrariness of the very category "breakfast drinks"! With such a wide-open tent what do we expect, what should a user expect, to learn exactly? A country without borders is by definition not a country.
 * The first paper's title is quite revealing: "ANS Responses and Facial Expressions Differentiate between the Taste of Commercial Breakfast Drinks." I would not mind at all a list of commercial breakfast drinks, ones that are labeled and sold as such by their producers. But a list of anything-goes-supposedly-breakfast-drinks, no, and thankfully this paper offers nothing in support of having such a grotesque list.
 * The second paper shows that "breakfast drinks" do exist, something on which everyone and their cereal-eating pj-clad mate Eric Stoltz can agree. We know they exist; we also know that practically every drink under the sun and the shade can be or has been labeled "breakfast."
 * And the third paper, similar in scope to the first, is about human reaction to officially and commercially labeled breakfast drinks, only they were tested in the blind, without labels. Who cares? This is one more source about commercial breakfast drinks. I've no quarrel with those.
 * We are still grounded. No lift off, still. -The Gnome (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, I don't see what's wrong with it. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to repeat myself. Read my argument above. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 01:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't like it, either. -The Gnome (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. A reasonably appropriate list, and a good place to redirect individual semi-notable articles.  DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per, well, all the "keep" !votes above, and on procedural grounds &mdash; the last AfD is still so fresh it could be had for breakfast. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears almost anything except for soda is good to drink in the morning. I find it difficult to define what should be on the list and what shouldn't be. Gameinfirmary (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew D.. I am opposed to reopening an RfD so quickly, it's disruptive. Ifnord (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and others. This is a notable topic. Lepricavark (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How is the /list/ a notable topic? While I don't disagree that Breakfast drinks could be a notable topic, a list of all fluid drunk at breakfast isn't needed. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the arguments on both sides have been sufficiently repeated already. Lepricavark (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Whilst I myself !voted to delete the article, and remain of the opinion it should be deleted, I fear 's badgering of people who !vote to keep here and on the other breakfast related AfDs goes beyond reasonable engagement in discussion and is tending towards harassment. Tyw7 - please let people express their optinions! Dorsetonian (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Wilco. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The topic is rather useless, given that any drink can be consumed for breakfast. This is just a list of possible ones with brief descriptions. No reason to keep at all. Not notable. Redditaddict69 (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:LISTN, numerous books that list/discuss breakfast drinks, ie. most recipe books nowadays include recipes for breakfast smoothies, bodybuilding books discuss the importance of protein shakes to have during the day, including breakfast. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.