Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magie Noir

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magie Noir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that this page meets Wikipedia's notability. It serves as an advertisement for a London night club rather an encyclopedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.133.113 (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment I completed the nom. Ansh666 02:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never heard of this cocktail, the related article isn't much. I considered sending it to speedy but I'm not 100% sure. Szzuk (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (then consider a {{R from misspelling}} to Magie Noire, which at least is correct French). I assume the source for this page is this Guardian comment piece but I failed to find any other sources, so I think this fails the "multiple sources" requirement of WP:GNG. A Google Books search for "Magie Noir" cocktail -wikipedia gives three relevant hits (ignore the last one as irrelevant), but the first hit is simply reprinting the Guardian comment piece and the second looks so similar it appears that "the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information", to quote WP:GNG#cite_note-3. The third GBooks hit is the script of a later play, so not a reliable source for a factual article. Qwfp (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.