Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory Gin (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 Delete - Yomangani talk 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Victory Gin (2nd nomination)
This was AfD'd months ago with a consensus to merge into Nineteen Eighty-Four, but no one has done so, and I still feel strongly that there is not enough material to bother. Nineteen Eighty-Four is long enough already, and always on the brink of cruftiness. Victory Gin itself is mentioned only a few times in the novel, and almost nothing is said about it except that it tastes awful. Delete. Robin Johnson (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. yandman  10:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 11:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Victory Gin is in no way a significant enough feature of Nineteen Eighty-Four to qualify for a separate article. As to the assertion that there is a brand of gin bearing this name manufactured or available in the United Kingdom, that would need substantiation and evidence of notability. BTLizard 11:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to this, Victory Gin is "a prominent prop in the movie, as in the book". It's mentioned in these book notes.  It's commonly enough known in its own right that political commentators use "drinking Victory Gin" as a metaphor, such as here, here, here, and here.  This subject should be covered by an encyclopaedia. That no-one has merged it after a consensus to merge is not a reason to delete it.  Firstly, the nominator xyrself could have merged it.  Secondly, there is an argument against merger on the article's own talk page, making a case that all of the various "Victory" items &mdash; Victory Gin, Victory Cigarettes, Victory Coffee, and so forth &mdash; are better discussed in a broad scope article on "Victory" items in 1984 (which some have described as "total parallels of freedom fries"), which have been written about by the world at large.  Again, that neither the nominator nor anyone else has yet taken it upon themselves to follow that idea through, or even to reply to the suggestion on Talk:Victory Gin even though they've had six months to do so, is not a reason to delete this article. AFD is not a weapon to force mergers to be done that one wants done, and when renominating it is a good idea to show that one has at least read the suggestions for refactoring that came out of the prior discussion.  An administrator hitting the delete button doesn't get us either the aforementioned merger or the aforementioned refactoring.  Keep. Uncle G 13:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. If someone had produced the proposed Victory items in 1984, we could merge and redirect there. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  13:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll comment on this here: I think that Victory items in 1984 would just be a list of non-notable items, all pointless for the same reasons as Victory Gin. And there's nothing in the book that tells you why all these things, from cigarettes to apartment buildings, are called "Victory", so it would be an invitation for original research too. Robin Johnson (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It would only actually be original research, however, if editors went and wrote their own hypotheses and analyses, rather than using the ones that have already been written and published on the subject outside of Wikipedia &mdash; several of which I pointed to above. An argument that "there's nothing in the book" ignores the all of the critical commentary that exists.  Uncle G 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have things backwards. If this article is deleted, it is impossible to merge it.  Whereas merging, or renaming and refactoring, this article to a new, broader scope, article, does not involve deletion at any stage.  Any editor with an account has the tools to merge, or to rename and refactor.  If your actual wish is to have the article merged, then having an administrator delete the content that you want merged beforehand doesn't help you.  Uncle G 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Uncle G, I respectfully disagree. Victory gin is a prop, not a plot or allegory device that is vital to 1984, and I do not see how it merits inclusion here. On the subject of "drinking Victory gin" being well known amongst political commentators, well there are 87 odd ghits for "drinking victory gin", about 4 of these from nn blogs and the rest from 1984 related sites. As for Freedom Fries being derived from Victory Gin, why not just have a note in the Freedom Fries page to state this, rather than a complete article listing the various different types of 'Victory' props in 1984. As for merging, I was kind of swinging that way but the 1984 article is massive enough as it is. I think this is a topic worth mention, but certainly not worth an article. --Amists 14:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is a "topic worth mention", then your view that Nineteen Eighty-Four is "massive enough as it is" should lead you directly to the conclusion that it is time for a Summary style breakout sub-article on the subject. Lo!  That is exactly what we already have.  If its scope is too narrow (as has been argued on Talk:Victory Gin), then rename and refactor it into an article with larger scope.  It doesn't require an administrator to hit the delete button, or administrator privileges, to rename an article and then edit it to broaden its scope. Uncle G 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, Uncle G you're right, in that if I think the subject is worth mention on WP then I shouldn't vote that we delete the entire article. My problem is that an expanded article on say 'Victory Props From 1984' would be no more valuable to WP than this article on Victory Gin (for reasons given above - no way is it a subject apart from the book in it's own right). I would support a merge with the main 1984 article, and I may have just done this myself, except the maintainers of this page (Talk:Victory Gin) appear to be against this course of action. In any case I'm changing my vote here to merge. --Amists 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a short rephrasing from the book itself. While the various victory items were clearly plot devices and strong symbols, they were so collectivly, not just the gin. I am sure that anything here can easily be incoorperated into the 1984 book article. If an article on symbols from 1984(Big brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime ect...) entering pop culture is created it would go there. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a plot device. But alright then :) --Amists 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not in a literal reading. My personal impression was that it was an ever present reminder of the state even when Winston was alone with his lover, but that is just one man's reading. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - bookcruft: and anyway the article is not real-world centered. Moreschi 17:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please keep this. I am a new user, and probably not able to vote, but I am an English scholar, and this and other 'victory items' are important elements to the book. They provide vital clues to how the society is being kept subservient. It would seem a shame to delete this valuable information, and I don't see any compelling argument above to do so. Thank you, Frank.
 * As you say, they're "important elements to the book", and as such deserve mention in the article on the book. However, they're not important enough to the real world to warrant an article of their own. The compelling argument is that we have to respect certain criteria concerning notability. yandman  08:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading the 1984 article, I see that "victory gin" is mentioned: "the Outer Party's standard of living is very poor. Foodstuffs are low quality or synthetic; the main alcoholic beverage — Victory Gin — is industrial-grade". In my opinion, this sentence gives everything we need to know concerning the drink: It's foul and it's for the outer party. Anything else is superfluous. yandman  08:50, 10 November 2006 (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.