Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tranny Dogg


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tranny Dogg

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable cocktail. Asserted to be popular in Sydney and Melbourne but the only sources are related to the Wikipedia page. Quite likely a hoax. nancy talk 09:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a single mention can be found on the internet for this supposed drink popular in Australia and New Zealand. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of sourcing some supporting references from either bar websites, bar menus, university/student union websites or university publications. Tranny Doggs are not held out to be globally popular, but they are popular in Sydney and Melbourne CBDs and parts of New Zealand. The article is inoffensive and informative. I believe it should be allowed to remain on Wikipedia subject to some verification from bars/universities in the coming days. Obviously the aforementioned published material which will be available, as it is rare that peer reviewed academic papers are produced on basic cocktails/mixer drinks. I find it curious that the article is repeatedly referred to as a 'hoax'. I've never heard of a hoax being perpetrated where the goal was to inform an audience of the ingredients to a drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dken5953 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC) — Dken953 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete unless enough reliable sources are produced to establish notability. Note to author - these are not uncommon on Wikipedia; though the "hoax" is not usually in the ingredients themselves but in the pretence that a drink the author has made up one day is widely known and the latest trendy thing. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Canley (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely non-notable, no independent references can be found. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think a tag or two on the article is too extreme; other articles for deletion don't have all that and I've seen worse. I also don't believe it to be a hoax: why would anyone make something up like that? It seems pretty believable, but it just doesn't meet notability as there's no reliable sources for it. People everywhere have their own version of drinks they enjoy particular to that city/area, and we don't have Wikipedia articles for that.  Lady   Galaxy  19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, I was unable to find any references to verify that this is real or notable. Would appear to be unverifiable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment - three "references" have now been provided, but the first gives a "not found" error, the second is for a "Snoop Dogg recipe", and the third is for a "Gin & Juice Drink Recipe - Snoop Dogg Style." So still absolutely no source for the "Tranny Dogg" of the article. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - i have updated the "reference" to clubsuntory - unfortunatly as a members only webpage it required a login to access the martin miller gin section, now the link will take you to the forepage and you can click through to the product (although you may still be required to login?!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.22.139 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, unverifiable item. --Roisterer (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment it appears that the first link does indeed (after signing up to the webpage) take you to a list of Suntory(tm) approved Cocktails, where the 'Tranny Dogg' does indeed feature - it would therefore be in my opinion referenced, and thereby not necessary to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.247.160 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your doggedness is to be applauded however the link merely proves that Tranny Dogg exists and thus deals only with allegation that the entire article is made-up. It does not show that the drink has any notability - a lot of things can be shown to exist but that is not in itself a justification for inclusion. nancy  talk 12:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * your tenacity to prove this author wrong seems in my mind like an ostentatious attempt to draw attention towards the unnecessary deletion of this article. Excuse me if i am reading the situation wrong however, from reading the article - and as mentioned above by the author, they are only presenting the information available. As a member of the hospitality profession, i know that everyone has their own 'drink' that someone created somewhere - and everyone has their own name for a variety of beverages. However in this instance, a cocktail - which appears to have been entertained by a major linchpin in the liquor industry and subsequently 'named' appears in my view, to be joining the ranks of the cocktail chronicles. If you feel the notability of this specific beverage is in question - then perhaps we should look at other recently noted beverages like the 'matador' only coming to popularity in the last 2 or 3 years, named after a specific tequila variety, and yet - entitled to its own page. Or the Jagerbomb, only coming to popularity after a wide drive by the same beverage company heavily promoted it as part of their drive to ascertain market share in the RTD culture of Asia Pacific. As a patron of the hospitality industry (and a very regular drinker) i feel it would be a shame to loose the inclusion of this 'new beverage' into a reformed cocktail list - if it is only satisfying the inkling of doubt in certain editors minds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.247.160 (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unverified. I take that to mean the drink is not widespread, therefore should have no article.-- Lester  21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: This whole thing reeks like a bad marketing ploy or traffic booster. Wikipedia isn't a recipe book. Italydiplo (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: This drink is wide-spread. It is consumed all over Australia and New Zealand. The reason it doesn't often feature in 'cocktail menus' all over the internet is the same reason a 'gin and tonic' doesn't feature in cocktail menus all over the internet. They are not expensive drinks priced like a traditional 'cocktail' and they are not complex to make. This article only serves to inform of a name which is very commonplace in at least two relatively large countries to describe a gin variety. The idea this is a marketing ploy is absurd. It is not a 'ready to drink' product, just a gin mixer drink. Note to editors - I am the original author of this article, but have not contributed the majority of the comments or discussion points in favour of retaining the article. I also note that other readers are responsible for some of the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dken5953 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. Jenafalt (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2008 (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.