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 keep. j⚛e decker^talk 05:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Should be deleted per WP:CFORK as it is an effort of content-forking for rakı. After deletion can be userfied to preserve the little, if any, useful information to add that content to rakı. The article is a total original research (see the version before I shaved it a bit) and that is why I did not propose a merge, which can be decided here, together with a redirect option. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at the history, I had first created rakija as a redirect to the anise-flavored liquor article in 2004, because it was described over there. Then, over a year later, after one or two other users fiddled with the redirect in an inappropriate manner (making it look as if it was a strictly Bulgarian drink, which it isn't), I moved the content over. It has since lived a life of its own. The next year, a Bulgarian user moved it to rakia. Over time, we had numerous more or less anonymous users fiddle with it further, trying to add a more strict relation to raki, or to some particular nation. It seems reasonable to separate it from raki because a rakija with aniseed is fairly rare in comparison with the other variants. Indeed, if you want to merge this drink anywhere, despite the etymology, I'd say brandy is a better location. And if you're actually serious about a merge, you'd probably have to take in the entire kit and caboodle, for example the list at eau de vie. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Joy - although Rakia and Raki probably come from the same Arabic word, the drink itself is very different, and Rakia is indeed a sort of brandy. FkpCascais (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep without prejudice for possible merging with eau de vie per Joy, but a content fork this is not. Rakı is a completely different beverage (basically same as ouzo), of which Rakia only borrowed the name. No such user (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. Just an ordinary user. I don't understand why you'd want to delete what seems a pretty factual (and accurate) article. Raki and Rakia are not the same. I just received a splendid bottle of local Rakia from a friend in Montenegro (on the bottle the sub-title is Eau de Vie de Montenegro). This is, of course, alcohol distilled from fruit (other than grapes) as your article on Eau de Vie correctly says - that article also refers (correctly) to Balkan Rakia. Eau de vie distilled from grapes can be called Brandy (among other things - Armagnac, Cognac, etc) I have also happily drunk Turkish Raki (most recently in Istanbul in October 2013). It is an anis-flavoured drink - like ouzo etc, but also pastis and absinthe (that connection would be better). IMHO the article does not need deleting but linking better with other articles. To verify, please just drink the stuff with pleasure and you'll see. Thanks.

2A02:120B:2C03:DB00:6D95:5AF0:8C13:E47 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Joefromrandb (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that messages have been taken (myself included). Therefore, as nominator, I suggest let us continue our discussion for its Merge and redirect to the appropriate article/section. To me it is Fruit brandy where Rakia's name is already present. We may take the additional -if any- information in the article there and redirect the title. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, well if it's "fruit brandy" to you, then it must be fruit brandy. We mustn't let minor nuisances like significant coverage by reliable sources mislead our readers. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is in the fruit brandy section of brandy article and I did not put it there. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Along with over a dozen other entries, each with its own parent-article. If someone reading that article wants to know more about rakia, we have a fairly comprehensive source-backed article that's only a wiki-link away. See how that works? Nothing to delete, nothing to redirect, nothing to merge; this is a solution in search of a problem. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't anymore -- I've created a WP:CONCEPTDAB article about fruit brandy, with a much clearer scope than before. Still, there are many articles about similar drinks across the world, which mostly differ in cultural aspects. No such user (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joefromrandb. This should be left alone as is. It's well referenced, factually accurate, and the nomination is based on a good faith misunderstanding. Leave it. oknazevad (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nom per opinions and new input by No such user. I made some changes to the article. I also would like to say here that "raki" should go directly to Rakı and not to a disam page, Thanks to all for your input and time. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:28, 22 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.