Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spicy Fifty


 * 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 merge to List of IBA official cocktails. Wikipedia currently has no subject notability guidelines for food and drink. WP:IAR arguments do get through AfD occasionally, but it requires 1) a very good explanation why; and 2) the !votes to make it happen. TonyBallioni's point arguably meets #1, but a 6:5 tally in favor of keeping just isn't enough to override standard practice. That said, there is a tiny amount of verifiable information available, so including it in a list is suitable. List of IBA official cocktails is not currently in a state to accept that content, but there is WP:NODEADLINE and the article can stay up until the list is converted into such a state. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Spicy Fifty

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable cocktail. A BEFORE search I did found no evidence of GNG-passing coverage.  Java Hurricane  05:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems very notable and well covered, it is one of the IBA cocktail, what is a before search? Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * nominator probably means WP:BEFORE. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It is an IBA official cocktail. It may not be very old (created in 2004), but if the IBA considers it important enough for making it well-known beyond the London bar where it was created, I'd say it is a notable enough recipe. Kumorifox (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, being an IBA cocktail may indicate wikinotability but its not a certainly, that said diffords goes into its history/origins, and forbes lists it but is this enough? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Keep, because it is an official IBA drink, which pretty much by definition makes it notable (at least outside WP — and no, we're not going to find significant RS coverage of any cocktail, I don't think). Weak, because it's on IBA's 'new era' list, which is a euphemism for 'not exactly a classic'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Forbes article referenced above is a "Forbes Contributor" article and therefore unreliable (rendering it irrelevant for notability purposes); see WP:FORBESCON. The Difford's link is not in any way "significant" coverage for GNG purposes because it simply lists the recipe with only sentences of commentary. A search indicated no sources that conferred notability. I don't know whether it's true or not that individual cocktails rarely have RSes about them, but that doesn't mean that they are subject to lower notability standards than articles on other subjects. To the closer: I ask for an exceptional third relist rather than a close because the previous discussion in this AfD did not substantially discuss the notability of the subject for Wikipedia purposes (according to GNG, which is the prevailing standard) and was therefore not policy based. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, largely per L235. Arguing that all "IBA Official Cocktails" are notable is a bit of an IAR rationale, and I don't find it persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given by delete voters. Mainly the sources aren't good enough to pass WP:GNG and arguing that all "IBA Official Cocktails" are notable is a non-starter IMO. So, there's no reason to have an article about this IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the rationale that it's an IBA official cocktail to be a good rationale for keeping. Wikipedia works best when we have clear bright line standards for inclusion or exclusion and have precedents, rather than using the GNG, which is an abysmally written guideline that can mean whatever you want it to mean depending on if you want to delete or include something. If I want to go off of that, being an IBA recognized cocktail arguably is a source as they didn't create it (a London bar did.) If you want more references to it see it being referenced as common knowledge isn National Geographic UK, and a quick Google News search sees it referenced off-hand in multiple publications, and Google Books shows it included in cocktail recipes from multiple publishers. Additionally, despite the claim above, of course we have different standards for notability for different types of subjects. BLPs and corporations are the highest, bus stops and train stations the lowest. One of the other areas where we traditionally have lower standards is food and drink. That's because food and drink, unless directly connected to a commercial establishment, are next to impossible to harm Wikipedia's reputation, the subject, or provide inappropriate information to the reader. We claim that the GNG is universal, but it isn't and it has never been applied uniformly, and Wikipedia would be worse off if it was, because different topics should have different standards that allow us to incorporate the articles that are significant within the topic area, while also not being a random collection of information.Here's the ultimate question: does keeping this cause any damage to Wikipedia? The answer in my mind is clearly "no". This isn't a BLP, so we don't need heavy sourcing. There's no promotionalism going on. We're often used as a reference for readers on different types of food and alcohol, and even if the information we contain is small, keeping it can be used as a jumping off point for others. In this case, it links to the IBA site, which having spent the last 10 minutes searching for in Google, I couldn't on my own. Maybe I'm a bit weird because I'm a fan of fancy drinks and I edit Wikipedia, but I quite frequently search for cocktails on this site as my first stop, and use it as a point of reference.I find it useful, and think there's no harm. The group that "regulates" cocktails internationally has deemed it important enough to be official. I think that's a significantly more objective standard than the GNG, and is more useful to the people we serve. The GNG is a guideline, and we can include things that we think will aid our readers in their understanding of the world if there's also nothing negative about including it, even if it does not meet the GNG. I see absolutely nothing harmful here, and I see benefit to readers. So keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO you could really put all that aside and just compare it to other articles on cocktails in Wikipedia. For instance compare Bloody Mary (cocktail) to this one. No one is arguing that "cocktails" aren't notable, they are arguing this one isn't. The article for it is essentially a listing of ingredients. Which isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. It doesn't even say what the history of the cocktail is. Again, compare that to Bloody Mary (cocktail). Which actually has encyclopedic content. Even if you want to disregard the GNG you still can't argue this article serves any purpose that isn't better served on a million other websites. Whereas, Bloody Mary (cocktail) the article actually fits the purpose of Wikipedia. So cool, have an articles about cocktails. Whatever, but it should at least be more then a list of recipe ingredients. There is a basic thing underlining Wikipedia that it isn't a directory. Which comes before the notability guidelines IMO. Although they shouldn't be thrown out though just because this doesn't meet their standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right now it sucks, but you could add sourced information stating when it was created, by whom, etc. Enough to bring it to stub level. I agree that NOT is above N, and I think that's a fair argument. I don't really find the GNG arguments strong, though, because like I said: we don't enforce it uniformly and for a lot of stuff we do rely on the "do people who are involved in the area outside of Wikipedia consider this significant?" standard, which is what the GNG is trying to approximate. For cocktails, IBA official status is as close as it comes to that for cocktails and if I really wanted to Wikilawyer it into GNG I could, but I'd rather be intellectually honest about it and say that in this case, using the GNG as an approximation of off-wiki importance fails, so we should use a better approximation: the judgement of the professional organization for this. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added some info on the drink's origins. A couple of the sources are admittedly a bit flaky, but The Caterer is a leading HoReCa trade magazine so should be pretty reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Third time is a charm. Keep arguments based on some form of official recognition surely have a policy basis. Linking that would help the closer. If there is no consensus on that argument then more detail how this is sourced would help

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I find myself in agreement with TonyBallionis rationale. If the IBA consider it significant it's hard to judge otherwise, I find this to be an excellent indication of notability. PainProf (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looking more closely at the IBA official cocktail list, it seems to be a problematic litmus test for encyclopedic notability. Spicy Fifty specifically appears to be classified as a "New Era drink", which according to the IBA is a category that is "periodically revised" and reflects promising new recipes, "fashions of the moment". Indeed, drinks in this category do not remain here indefinitely—in 2019, the list looked like this, and some of the drinks there no longer appear on the current list (e.g. Kamikaze and Dirty Martini). This seems to indicate that these drinks actually lost their IBA "official" status in the 2020 revision, which is problematic because we consider notability on Wikipedia to be permanent. A more convincing argument would be inclusion in the "Unforgettables" and "Contemporary Classics" IBA categories, the members of which do seem to stay in those categories indefinitely and include obviously notable cocktails like Margarita and Bloody Mary. More importantly, the keep arguments ask us to disregard WP:GNG for this subject, but I see no policy-based reason for doing so. The community has adopted no guideline or even precedent which states that cocktails are presumed to be notable because they are IBA official, so we fall back onto GNG. "I find it useful, and think there's no harm" is not a valid keep rationale because of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cocktail reference. Perhaps GNG is an "abysmally written guideline", but a single AfD here cannot override that general guideline (WP:CONLIMITED). At the end of the day, the fundamental principle here is the following: we presume that a subject is worth writing about if reliable sources have found the subject worth writing about. There are some sources that mention the subject in passing, and a Google Books search seems to find it included in at least one cocktail recipe book, e.g.  (p. 153). Unfortunately, this kind of coverage isn't enough to support standalone notability, but it may be enough to include it in a list (perhaps List of IBA official cocktails could be refactored with brief descriptions of each drink, instead of just being a list of links). Overall, the arguments for deleting this article appear to be stronger than those for keeping it. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As per my findings, this is a generic informational article having Reliable resources. And agreed with TonyBallioni  D My Son  08:19, 29 July 2020 (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.