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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahandra[edit]

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

Likely hoax. There are no sources about this drink. The article cites two sources:

1. Fischer, L. (1996). Designing women: cinema, art deco, and the female form Film and culture: Columbia University Press, 2003
2. Curtis, W. (2006). And a bottle of rum: a history of the New World in ten cocktails: Crown Publishers

However, neither book mentions Sahandra. A Google Books search in the first book (with the query "Sahandra") returns no results. Likewise, a Google Books search in the second book (with the query "Sahandra") also returns no results.

A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return no relevant results. This topic fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first book (Fischer, Lucy (2003). Designing women: cinema, art deco, and the female form. Film and culture. Columbia University Press.) seems unlikely to contain much of a mention about this specific drink (or if it does, I would assume that it would be a very brief mention) - like Cunard, I can't find a reference to the drink via Google Books, and none of my local libraries have this book in their stocks, so I can't verify it myself. The second book (Curtis, Wayne (2006). And a bottle of rum: a history of the New World in ten cocktails. Crown Publishers.) simialrly isn't available for me to look at locally. I can find no references which include the book title and the word "Sahandra". In fact the only references I can find that mention either of these books and the word "Sahandra" is at this article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too was unable to verify the sources when the article was first submitted, and tagged it as a hoax. Agree with nom - it's likely a fictitious drink sourced falsely. Though I applaud the continued invention of new mixed drinks, the article as-standing is both a hoax and not a noteworthy concoction. DJBullfish 00:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:44, 10 December 2009 (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.