Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor K

:{{la|Doctor K}} ([{{fullurl:Doctor K|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor K}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable cocktail, I don't know of a speedy deletion criterion for such things. Corvus cornix_talk 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

: Tagged for speedy deletion for being short/without context Jammy Simpson | Talk | 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

::removed tag for speedy - has context. Short is not criteria for speedy deletion.Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete: unable to find any references to establish notability. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

: See reference Harwood, Jeremy (1999). Cocktails HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, England.74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

: The scredriver was not very notable either at one point in time. What makes you think that this drink will not be notable. Have you ever tasted one? Jim Kay 74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimKay3495 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:::"Will be notable" is not the same thing as "is notable". Please read WP:N and WP:RS. Corvus cornix_talk 00:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::: And more information at WP:NFT. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - unable to find any evidence of notability, or sources - reliable or not. The article Doctor K,, which is almost identical to this, should also be deleted. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 00:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

: See the reference Harwood, Jeremy (1999). Cocktails HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, England.74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a recipe book. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

: This is simply the first entry for an item. It is built upon from there. Others will find the reference and add more details about the history and origin. 74.160.73.114 (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::It is not the responsibility of "others" to prove notability, it's the responsibility of the original editor. This discussion will last five days. If valid reliable sources are provided by then, then great. Corvus cornix_talk 05:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

: See the reference Harwood, Jeremy (1999). Cocktails HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, England.JimKay3495 (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I've redirected the mis-spelt copy of this same article to the one page, for clarity. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• delete - doesn't seem to be notable outside of the asserted mention in a recipe book. If mention in a recipe book is sufficient, Wikipedia would also have to have an article on Edna Staebler's Butternut Squash Brownies. That would seem contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. I'd prefer to see a third-party assertion that this drink is notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A recipe in a bartender's guide or the like establishes that the drink exists and isn't something the editor just made up one day, but it's not sufficient to establish notability. Is there an article from a reliable secondary source about this drink specifically? If there were, it might be worth keeping, but I'm not aware of any such article. Chuck (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki A good encyclopaedia article would need more information than a simple recipie. However, this would be well suited for Wikibooks [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bartending/Cocktails http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bartending/Cocktails]. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:04, 7 March 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.