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 redirect to Coffee milk. Serindipitous closes aside, the consensus for a merge is clear here. However, as it appears all relevant information has already been merged, a redirect is now in order. (Note: Any information felt to not have been merged can be retrived from the article's history.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee syrup

[edit]

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

Withdrawing proposed merger and nominating for deletion. Duplicates contents of Coffee milk. Before my most recent edits to the latter, it duplicated the text almost exactly. Coffee milk is the notable subject as the official state drink of Rhode Island, not the syrup. (Also, the article cites no sources and makes no claim to notability except through coffee milk). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge selectively to Coffee milk.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: - I proposed merge first, then withdrew it when I realized all of the content on coffee syrup was duplicated at coffee milk, rested on the notability of coffee milk, and that much of it was inaccurate and/or unsourced. After a rewrite of coffee milk (in the last hour), there is nothing further on the coffee syrup page that can be merged. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some content in Coffee syrup that's not present in the Coffee milk article, and a quick search demonstrates that the content in Coffee syrup has a potential to be sourced. For example, see, this book link (pp. 146-147) (scroll down) about the origins of Autocrat Coffee Company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was there that wasn't present in Coffee milk? The coffee cabinets sentence, I guess? The "Originally produced in..drug stores" seems to be the only other thing not duplicated, and that's because I removed it from the other article as unsourced (in favor of a sourced history that tells a slightly different story). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (changing my !vote above). Upon a review of available sources, (and more are available), this topic passes WP:GNG. Source examples include:

Again, more sources are available other than those I've listed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Below are the titles of all of the references you mention:
- Coffee Milk: The Rhode Island Specialty Fueled By Autocrat Syrup
- Drunk on Gansett Coffee Milk
- Narragansett Beer Co. Planning Autocrat Coffee Milk Stout
- Narragansett announces release of Autocrat Coffee Milk Stout
- (Title of the section in the RI Curiosities book):Milk in your coffee? Coffee in your Milk!
The only one out of all of these that doesn't contain "coffee milk" in the title is a recipe for coffee syrup on 1 page of a book. Aside from that one, any notability coffee syrup has would be inherited from the drink, coffee milk, that has been the subject of far more sources.
Aside from the negligible recipe are there any sources that talk about coffee syrup independent of coffee milk? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try a control/find search for "coffee syrup" and "syrup" (which it is often referred to thereafter) in the sources I provided instead, and also read them, rather than relying upon the term within article and book titles. The topic clearly passes WP:GNG. As the old saying goes, one shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point isn't that the sources don't mention coffee syrup, it's that the only notability it has comes from the drink and does not have significant reliable coverage apart from it (the way e.g. chocolate syrup does -- that article's not looking so hot at the moment but I have no doubt there are plenty of articles about chocolate syrup on its own merit).
Even if we say "ok, all of its coverage is tied to coffee milk but it's still significant reliable coverage," passing the GNG doesn't mean it gets a stand-alone article -- only that it's notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. Hence why I initially tagged it for merge -- but it has nothing to offer the other article so merge isn't applicable. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Looking at both articles and the above discussed sources I'm not persuaded it's independently notable, and with coffee milk already existing and covering the same ground there is no need for a separate article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the Coffee milk article does not have all of the content of the Coffee syrup article within it. For example, compare the timeline section (which I've worked to expand and cite) in the Coffee syrup article to content in Coffee milk. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hm. As I said in my nomination rationale, in my response to your initial comments, and again elsewhere: the timeline as well as everything else coffee syrup has that is not on coffee milk was on coffee milk as of this morning -- until I revised it. Everything usable from the timeline was incorporated into Coffee milk#History, and everything that was unsourced OR, marketing/promotion, trivia, etc. stripped out. So again, all of the content from coffee syrup was duplicated at coffee milk this morning -- until, on the latter, the garbage was removed and good bits worked into the article (as opposed to a "timeline" section) --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: to be fair, I should say Northamerica1000 did recently add sources/content about beer to both articles and I pulled those references which were not already at coffee milk over from coffee syrup. ...But that it's a "coffee milk stout," I think, just makes the point again. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is also quite expandable compared to its present state, per sources available that cover the topic. Again, many more sources exist other than those I posted in my !vote above. Also, regardless, Happy holidays to all.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above discussion and looking at the articles it appears that they are very closely related and would best be covered as a single subject. Much of the content has already been merged. Redirect and include anything else worthy in a combined article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A fact of the matter is that coffee syrup is not used only as an ingredient to make coffee milk. For example, it's also used in the preparation of coffee cabinets. I still feel that the topic has received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article, and that a merge to coffee milk would dilute the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument. My suggestion would be to build a section in the merged article on coffee syrup and if in fact it grows unwield it can at some future point perhaps be broken out. But at the mo, the two articles are so interwined it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense to have two article covering them. I think the distinctions can be noted in a ombined article. Boht relate to Rhode Island, etc. etc. Maybe others will feel differently but that's my opinion. Happy New Year!!! Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems to be the best option for now. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 9 January 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.