Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Bartending/Techniques/Stirred cocktails/Extra Extra Dry Martini

Bartending/Techniques/Stirred cocktails/Extra Extra Dry Martini
This article is essentially a piece of satire, and thus not a useful addition to a serious book about bartending. There is already a serious WB:NPOV discussion of ultra-dry Martinis as part of Bartending/Cocktails/Martini --Fishpi (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is certainly satire, and in my opinion not very funny.--Wisden (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete since two editors have identified it as satire. Kayau 02:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Not helpful. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An old and hoary joke. If you want to drink gin, for pete's sake call it gin. Chazz (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful entry. I don't get the joke ... Tempodivalse 03:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like snowballing. Kayau 14:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Snowballing is not a speedy deletion criterion.
 * Besides, apparently that's made with Advocaat, lemonade, and lime juice. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, snowballing is not a speedy criterion, but WB is not a bureaucracy, and since this module doesn't have a ghost of a chance of being kept, it makes sense to delete it immediately. Kayau 02:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On one hand, deliberation time for deletions is a protection against admins taking it on themselves to make snap judgments before all voices have been heard. That's a very important principle, as allowing everyone to be heard is a community value, so one wants to be very leery of compromising the principle.  Being careful about certain things does not require a bureaucracy.  And what's on the other side?  Nothing.  The page has already been there for four and a half years; the time to do this right is trivial.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the very slim chance of this being kept justifies a hasty snowball deletion. If anyone wants to raise objection to the deletion they can request undeletion. Still, arguing about snowballing isn't the wisest thing to do, so I won't argue for snowballing. Kayau 07:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the sake of completeness, WB's deletion policy requires RfD discussions not be closed until a week after the last comment. --dark lama  12:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why they invented snowball: for IAR. :) Kayau 13:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There may have been circumstances where I've closed discussions before a week has passed since the last comment. However, I wouldn't close any involved discussions less than a week since the first comment.  I've tried to apply the former to RFPs and people got impatient.  On RFDs and "snowballing", I wouldn't compromise beyond the latter, unless it was a clear speedy deletion (which I think we have done).  Overall, the nomination has been open for two days.  If you're looking for something to do, we could use comment on the stalled discussion for Relationships above. – Adrignola discuss 13:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not important or anything but CSD doesn't count as snowballing because it's not IAR. Kayau 14:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't condone snowballing or ignoring of rules and neither has precedence at Wikibooks. – Adrignola discuss 16:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It's just a piece of satire. 90.202.242.175 (discuss) 16:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)