Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malimooju


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. The article can be recreated but wait for in-depth coverage in high quality sources to emerge before doing so. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Malimooju

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Reviewed under new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. In fact no indication that it even exists other than in the minds of the two students who made it up. The only "reference" is to a different actual cocktail which the editor claims is a "variant" of  this probably-non-existent one. one. Since it has one "reference" I did not speedy it. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there, not every new cocktail that's been created will automatically have been entered in bartenders' guide books. These things come with time. I created the cocktail as it is gaining significant popularity and I am sure with time that more mentions of it will come about. Deleting it at such an early stage would be an extremely premature decision. I am happy to discuss any specific queries that you may have. Also, I suggest you try a Malimooju. It is genuinely delicious! Eagleye1001 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The cocktail has been submitted for approval by the National Bartenders Association also. This will be added as a reference once it is approved. Eagleye1001 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the post and the idea.  The AFD is not a reflection on your cocktail or it's prospects.   Wikipedia articles are based on material that is in published sources, and more to the point here, stand-alone articles are for items which have received in-depth coverage in independent published sources. I'm just doing my job which is to implement that criteria. I wish you and your cocktail the best.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem mate. All I ask is that you hold off on any decision for a while. A "stay of execution" of sorts. As I've said, it's awaiting approval by the NBA so once that approval is gained it can be added as a source. Eagleye1001 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we aren't going to 'hold off' on the decision of whether to delete WP:A11 content. You have created an article that is pretending this cocktail you and a friend came up with from whatever was sitting around your dorm room is an actual thing. You've been playing around here on WP since you were a kid. You aren't a kid any more. Grow up. valereee (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * With reference to the Introduction to the Deletion Process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process) linked above, it states under the "Competence" heading that articles should not be deleted "if the content is still being built or improved." I believe this cocktail falls under that category. It just needs more time. Eagleye1001 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the post. The way that 99% of deleted articles are deleted they can easily be recreated. If your new cocktail gains the coverage to meet wp:notability, you can easily recreate the article. If that time comes and you want help, guidance or support, ping me and I'd be happy to.  The section that you refer to is really about where the topic meets wp:notability requirements but the articles is in bad shape.  Such is not the case here. BTW I don't think that you understand this area of the Wikipedia alternate universe. If you'd like to do that, the decoder ring is at WP:Notability.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotion? No published sources. Can easily be re-created if the drink gains traction. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely unsourced, no credible claim to notability, and it appears to have been created this year by a couple of college students in their dorm? Dubious. this looks like a hoax or joke, which is vandalism. Do not do this again. Wikipedia is not a playground where you can show your roomies, "Look guys! I got our cocktail into Wikipedia!" Honestly this could probably have been speedied as obviously invented. JFC. valereee (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the situation should be taken at face value as explained. A couple folks invented a cocktail, are sincerely working to get it acknowledged / made more official, and mistakenly thought that creating a Wikipedia article would be a good way to pursue that. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @North8000, this person's talk is littered with warnings for unconstructive editing, almost none of which they ever bothered to respond to. They're an adult now. They need to stop wasting other people's time. valereee (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Valereee Jesus Christ you need to learn some manners. Yeah I messed around a little when I was younger but I am an adult now, I'm mature and I'm trying damn hard to work with @North8000 (who, to their credit, has treated me politely and respectfully through this whole process and who I am happy to work with regardless of the outcome.) If you have some nonsense personal issue in your head regarding this vendetta against me, please by all means fantasise about it, but please stop with this character abuse that you've left both on my own talk page and here. Eagleye1001 (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And with regards to being "littered with warnings for unconstructive editing", I only see one situation there that was actually a screw-up. Almost everything else is true stuff that I've just been unable to cite properly, which is fair enough, but that's not vandalism that's just shoddy journalism or whatever you want to call it on my behalf. I have also been cited for creating pages that have been helpful to the community, so I resent your personal accusation that I treat Wikipedia as a playground. You need to chill out, because if you ASSUME stuff you only make an ASS of U and ME @Valereee. Eagleye1001 (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote about a friend liking hot sauce. Two months ago. Seriously. valereee (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He does, Aiden is a friend of mine and if you scrolled through his Instagram (CossackGundi) you'd see he's made numerous posts about it in the past. This is my friend who bravely defended Mariupol and is now under threat of execution in the so-called Donetsk People's Republic.
 * Side note, I was praised in the past for my creation of Giuseppe Sapeto. Eagleye1001 (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Content needs to be cited to WP:RS and not trivia. I'd rather have this discussion at your user talk, as it's gotten off-topic here. valereee (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per valereee. We cannot base a standalone article upon a single source which is just some dude's website. This probably should have been speedied but a closed AfD will prevent this from being written ever again. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the creator has said, "not every new cocktail that's been created will automatically have been entered in bartenders' guide books. These things come with time."  Once that time comes, feel free to come back with it.  Wikipedia is not a place to get your creations known and out there.  Wikipedia is behind the curve, not leading the charge, in terms of the information presented. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt : Topic is entirely original research. WP:BEFORE shows nothing notable related to it in any way. –– FormalDude  talk  23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between delete and delete and salt? Eagleye1001 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Salting is creation protection, meaning it prevents the article from being created in the future under the same title. –– FormalDude  talk  23:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would that be done though? Okay with the points people have made I can see why it may need to be deleted currently but if I come back with a much stronger, better written and better referenced article, why shouldn't it be allowed on Wikipedia? Eagleye1001 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It probably doesn't need to be done since it has never been recreated before. I'll remove that portion of my !vote. –– FormalDude  talk  23:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also nothing's irreversible here. Just because a subject is salted doesn't mean it can't be unsalted. valereee (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks to be more of re-discovered a drink that already exists. searching malibu rum and chocolate milk shows numerous recipes. anyway, fails WP:GNG as WP:TOOSOON even if factual.Slywriter (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Plain and simple, WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subject is not notable. Maybe it will be one day; but that is not a reason to accept. Maproom (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete topic is clearly not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2022 (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.