Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Slim (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 keep. (non-admin closure)  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   11:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Mickey Slim
AfDs for this article:


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

The topic, about an alleged popular cocktail made from gin and DDT (yes, I'm talking about that DDT), seems to fail WP:GNG, both in regard to in-depth coverage and in regard to reliability of sources. It basically relies on a claim made in one source (the 2001 book The Dedalus Book of Absinthe), which was re-reported in a couple other places. That source was not even focused on this topic – it was focused on absinthe, which is not an ingredient of this alleged cocktail. We don't know for sure that this source was reliable. We don't know for sure that the cocktail that is the subject of the article ever really existed. Probably it didn't, both because DDT is not very soluble and also because people don't generally entertain themselves by drinking insecticide. Maybe the myth originated from a fellow named George Alexander Campbell, who promoted DDT usage in the early 1970s (per some discussion at http://microkhan.com/2010/06/09/the-myth-of-the-mickey-slim/). Maybe not, but the drink is probably a made-up story that got repeated sporadically because it sounded interesting, not because it was a real phenomenon. It is sometimes said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and such evidence is lacking. The evidence that this drink existed is pretty thin, and there really doesn't seem to be enough in-depth information about it out there to say anything about it with confidence. It has been more than 16 years since the previous delection nomination discussion, and maybe the consensus on what is considered adequate quality of sourcing and depth of coverage has changed since then. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, History,  and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep We have many articles about hoaxes/falsehoods. Editing the article to make it clear that it's likely it was never actually made/consumed would be fine but there are too many references in newspapers and books to claim it doesn't meet WP:GNG:
 * From google books:, , , , , , , this one is particularly interesting since the only part available says it disproves the mickey slim as ever existing but it came out this year so I can't find an easy online source, although it's somewhat based on a blog:.
 * Skynxnex (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep based on the explanation with sources above, I can't access most of them from my location. Will assume good faith. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - While it's a weird thing to consume, some of Skynxnex's sources do show enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks to the sources found by Skynxnex. Sounds like a tasty beverage :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:04, 17 December 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.