Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vodka Red Bull


 * 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. v/r - TP 17:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Vodka Red Bull

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Article uses 2 sources. One is instructions to dump vodka and red bull in a glass. The second is a legit news story that talks about the ingredients being mixed, but never calls it a "Vodka Red Bull", "VRB", "Vod-Bomb", "Birch", "DVR" or "Vod Bull", all names the article claims the concoction is supposedly "commonly called". Makes a few OR claims about the cocktail. Article is strong on OR and WP:IHEARDOFIT and light on significant coverage about the "Vodka Red Bull". Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep extensive coverage on the combination. searching "Vodka Red Bull" in gnews returns 4,700 hits, including this in The New York Times which mentions the Wikipedia entry we are discussing, this from the Daily Mail, and this from ABC News discussing the health effects. More than enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG. Any problems the article has can be fixed by editing, so it shouldn't be deleted. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  19:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This might seem petty to you, but saying "vodka-Red Bull" and "Vodka Red Bull" is not the same thing (note the capitalization). The former, which is what most of the articles say, is simply indicating a mixture of the two while the latter, which is the AfD, indicates an actual title of a drink. I can show plenty of sources that reference mixing "oil and water", but that doesn't mean there is now a mixture called "Oil Water". Similarly, the search, even with the quotation marks, returns ones like this, which says "...vodka, Red Bull.." etc. There is a difference between there being a title and simply using the words together. Also note that the NYT entry uses this wikipedia article as "proof" that it has a name.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is just silly semantics - any drink with those two ingredients is the same thing. You can walk into any bar in the US and order a Red Bull and Vodka the same way you might order a Rum and Coke. The NY Times article citing the page isn't clear evidence, but the other articles certainly are. See also . Whether or not the other names can be verified or whether the page should be moved to "Red Bull and vodka" is an issue of routine editing, not article deletion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just "silly semantics". Who cares about the words, it's not like we're writing an encyclopedia here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * delete there are some mixed drinks that are notable for various reasons, cultural (the Martini), historical (the Bloody Mary), and so on. But simple drinks like this are virtually endless.  Take any mixer, take any of the "big 5" core liquors and there's a potential article. 98.209.39.71 (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – The topic's notability is established per several reliable sources listed by User:Quasihuman above this message, which satisfy each of Wikipedia's General notability guidelines, including the existence of significant coverage of the topic, source reliability and editorial integrity, sources being secondary sources and sources being independent of the subject. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, mentioning the ingedients in the same article and using them as a proper title are not the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete A mixture of two drinks do not warrant its own article. No significant coverage except for a few brief mentions. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "A mixture of two drinks do not warrant its own article." Really? What about Gin and tonic, Rum and Coke, Jack and Coke, 7 and 7, Rye & Ginger and Mimosa (Champagne and OJ)? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've heard this as Red Bull & Vodka, it has been mentioned in the remake of the Piña Colada Song. I personally couldn't care less than I do now if the article stayed or was deleted. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Obviously meets the general notability guideline if you just do a little looking, instead of assuming and rushing to nominate. I've added two more reputable book sources that provide more than trivial coverage, and I also added the newspaper mentions from Quasihuman's statement above. Steven Walling &bull; talk   22:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rush to nominate? Nothing like assuming a little good faith. If you bothered to take a little of your time to look at the article history, you will see I edited as far back at April, then notability tagged it in May. Yeah, big rush, huh. Maybe next time, you should do a little looking instead of assuming my friend.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's even worse. You hung around the article for months and then decided to nominate it apparently without bothering to simply Google for sources. It took all of five minutes to see that there's stuff out there. Steven Walling &bull; talk   22:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I understand the difference between "vodka, red bull" and "Vodka Red Bull" and after seeing enough examples of where they were used not as an actual title, as the article claims, I decided to nom it. Will there be more commenting on the editor from you? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no real difference between "vodka and Red Bull" and a Vodka Red Bull. Just like there's no difference between gin and tonic water and a "gin and tonic". What ensures notability in both cases is an abundance of reliable, published sources that refer to the cocktail. Steven Walling &bull; talk   03:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a difference and that's not even the example I gave. I said "...vodka, Red Bull...". Notice the comma? It's part of a list, not a title. Ok, I get it, you don't care about the wording. I do. The fact that I do doesn't justify your insults.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to me that notability on this one is fairly firmly established. Google scholar alone is giving 50 results, and a typical google search results thousands.  If it's the names given that are the issue, fine, remove them... but the article itself should be fine to stand as it is.  - Philippe  16:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it's disgusting, but the Millennials love it, and have made it notable. Bearian (talk)
 * 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.