- 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 no consensus , which does not preclude an editorial discussion of a merger Star Mississippi 01:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Mustang coffee
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mustang coffee ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Didn't locate any substantive coverage on a search. Appears to be a non-notable coffee cocktail. De-PROD'd by Spinningspark on the claim that it is "Plainly not a recent coffee cocktail invented by an obscure barman, but a traditional regional drink" - except none of that is even claimed in the article, so now we're just making wild assumptions when de-PRODing. Naturally, no substantiation of that claim in any reliable source is provided, and certainly no significant coverage. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, it was not a wild assumption, it was based on sources I read before deprodding which show it has been widely reported for a substantial period. You went to AFD less than two minutes of deprodding without discussing and without waiting to see if I did anything with the page.
Spinning
Spark 07:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Historically, I have rarely seen you make improvements to pages I've PROD'd. I was the one to merge that village-turned-mountain page you de-PROD'd the other week - you didn't even add the source you found to the page that time, let alone rescope it to be a mountain. The reference you added this time is a single-sentence description of the coffee in an interview piece with an artist. It's hardly SIGCOV, and if that's the best source you can find, it speaks for itself as to the notability of the drink. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, it was not a wild assumption, it was based on sources I read before deprodding which show it has been widely reported for a substantial period. You went to AFD less than two minutes of deprodding without discussing and without waiting to see if I did anything with the page.
Spinning
Spark 07:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Nepal. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Liqueur coffee. Spinning Spark 07:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a classic case of the institutional bias inherent in Wikipedia. The recipe is clearly well known in the region, but it is non-English speaking, remote country with little history of publishing and few Westerners who can speak the language to read what has been published. This all adds up to a big difficulty in finding sources. In my opinion, we ought to be far more forgiving over sourcing than we would, say, for a new dish just invented by a five-star New York restaurant. Spinning Spark 09:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't know about that, Spark: as someone coming at this as a random AfD respondent plucking this article at random from the list, what I am seeing here is that literally every source of the article except the Disneyworld menu URL (which I'm sorry, just should not be used in this article as a reference, full stop) is used to define the contents of the drink... There's no encyclopedic context, no showing of notability by way of detailed discussion in reliable sources. This seems like a pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE; we can't just create an article for every single beverage in existence for every region of planet earth, nor can we throw WP:GNG out the window because the topic arises somewhere that English isn't the dominate language under the argument that bias is the most reasonable explanation for the lack of demonstrated notability. On this project the onus is upon the party advocating for the retention of an article to demonstrate that the subject is notable, and that just hasn't been done here. And again, if the most we can say about a drink with the use of all available sourcing is to list its contents, that seems like very weak tea indeed (pun intended). Literally the only other thing this stub says about the drink is the vague assertion that the drink is "especially famous in Nepal", and that's the literally the only one of the article's five sentences which is not even sourced, and may be entirely an impressionistic observation on the part of whoever wrote the article--that is to say WP:Original Research. SnowRise let's rap 08:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or merge. Per my comments above: no detailed coverage in even a single one of the sources referenced--just a number of incidental mentions in sources (some which do not meet WP:RS standards in any event), amounting to a mention of the drink's existence and noting it's ingredients. That's well bellow the threshold of encyclopedic context and relevance required under WP:NOTABILITY. Spinnignspark may be correct that if this were a coffee drink from somewhere else in the world, it may have more sources discussing it, but such arguments do not obviate the requirement to comport with policy in regard to GNG and WP:WWIN. It seems this listing has been up for some weeks: if additional sourcing has not been found yet which can tell us even a single thing of encyclopedic relevance about this drink other than what is in it, it would seem unlikely that such sourcing is going to be immediately forthcoming. SnowRise let's rap 08:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please note that I just edited my !vote to reflect that a merge would also be reasonable here, something I meant to note originally; all above comments not withstanding, Spinningspark's suggestion of a merge to liqueur coffee seems like a perfectly rational middle ground solution and I meant to say so in my original !vote. Issues with notability are less pronounced when we are talking about an entry detail in a larger subject that addresses context: the sources would be sufficient to verifying the facts in question even if they do not satisfy independent notability for the subject of this article. SnowRise let's rap 02:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:52, 22 May 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.
- 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 no consensus , which does not preclude an editorial discussion of a merger Star Mississippi 01:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Mustang coffee
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mustang coffee ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Didn't locate any substantive coverage on a search. Appears to be a non-notable coffee cocktail. De-PROD'd by Spinningspark on the claim that it is "Plainly not a recent coffee cocktail invented by an obscure barman, but a traditional regional drink" - except none of that is even claimed in the article, so now we're just making wild assumptions when de-PRODing. Naturally, no substantiation of that claim in any reliable source is provided, and certainly no significant coverage. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, it was not a wild assumption, it was based on sources I read before deprodding which show it has been widely reported for a substantial period. You went to AFD less than two minutes of deprodding without discussing and without waiting to see if I did anything with the page.
Spinning
Spark 07:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Historically, I have rarely seen you make improvements to pages I've PROD'd. I was the one to merge that village-turned-mountain page you de-PROD'd the other week - you didn't even add the source you found to the page that time, let alone rescope it to be a mountain. The reference you added this time is a single-sentence description of the coffee in an interview piece with an artist. It's hardly SIGCOV, and if that's the best source you can find, it speaks for itself as to the notability of the drink. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, it was not a wild assumption, it was based on sources I read before deprodding which show it has been widely reported for a substantial period. You went to AFD less than two minutes of deprodding without discussing and without waiting to see if I did anything with the page.
Spinning
Spark 07:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Nepal. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Keep or merge to Liqueur coffee. Spinning Spark 07:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a classic case of the institutional bias inherent in Wikipedia. The recipe is clearly well known in the region, but it is non-English speaking, remote country with little history of publishing and few Westerners who can speak the language to read what has been published. This all adds up to a big difficulty in finding sources. In my opinion, we ought to be far more forgiving over sourcing than we would, say, for a new dish just invented by a five-star New York restaurant. Spinning Spark 09:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, I don't know about that, Spark: as someone coming at this as a random AfD respondent plucking this article at random from the list, what I am seeing here is that literally every source of the article except the Disneyworld menu URL (which I'm sorry, just should not be used in this article as a reference, full stop) is used to define the contents of the drink... There's no encyclopedic context, no showing of notability by way of detailed discussion in reliable sources. This seems like a pretty clear cut case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE; we can't just create an article for every single beverage in existence for every region of planet earth, nor can we throw WP:GNG out the window because the topic arises somewhere that English isn't the dominate language under the argument that bias is the most reasonable explanation for the lack of demonstrated notability. On this project the onus is upon the party advocating for the retention of an article to demonstrate that the subject is notable, and that just hasn't been done here. And again, if the most we can say about a drink with the use of all available sourcing is to list its contents, that seems like very weak tea indeed (pun intended). Literally the only other thing this stub says about the drink is the vague assertion that the drink is "especially famous in Nepal", and that's the literally the only one of the article's five sentences which is not even sourced, and may be entirely an impressionistic observation on the part of whoever wrote the article--that is to say WP:Original Research. SnowRise let's rap 08:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete or merge. Per my comments above: no detailed coverage in even a single one of the sources referenced--just a number of incidental mentions in sources (some which do not meet WP:RS standards in any event), amounting to a mention of the drink's existence and noting it's ingredients. That's well bellow the threshold of encyclopedic context and relevance required under WP:NOTABILITY. Spinnignspark may be correct that if this were a coffee drink from somewhere else in the world, it may have more sources discussing it, but such arguments do not obviate the requirement to comport with policy in regard to GNG and WP:WWIN. It seems this listing has been up for some weeks: if additional sourcing has not been found yet which can tell us even a single thing of encyclopedic relevance about this drink other than what is in it, it would seem unlikely that such sourcing is going to be immediately forthcoming. SnowRise let's rap 08:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please note that I just edited my !vote to reflect that a merge would also be reasonable here, something I meant to note originally; all above comments not withstanding, Spinningspark's suggestion of a merge to liqueur coffee seems like a perfectly rational middle ground solution and I meant to say so in my original !vote. Issues with notability are less pronounced when we are talking about an entry detail in a larger subject that addresses context: the sources would be sufficient to verifying the facts in question even if they do not satisfy independent notability for the subject of this article. SnowRise let's rap 02:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:52, 22 May 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.