Deletion of Spicy Fifty

Comment: Looking more closely at the IBA official cocktail list, it seems to be a problematic litmus test for encyclopedic notability. Spicy Fifty specifically appears to be classified as a "New Era drink", which https://iba-world.com/news/2020-iba-official-cocktail-list/ according to the IBA is a category that is "periodically revised" and reflects promising ''new'' recipes, "fashions of the moment". Indeed, drinks in this category do not remain here indefinitely—in 2019, the list looked https://web.archive.org/web/20190703151859/https://iba-world.com/new-era-drinks/ like this, and some of the drinks there no longer appear on https://iba-world.com/new-era-drinks/ the current list (e.g. Kamikaze and Dirty Martini). This seems to indicate that these drinks actually lost their IBA "official" status in the 2020 revision, which is problematic because we consider notability on Wikipedia |to be permanent. A more convincing argument would be inclusion in the https://iba-world.com/iba-cocktails/ "Unforgettables" and https://iba-world.com/contemporary-classics/ "Contemporary Classics" IBA categories, the members of which do seem to stay in those categories indefinitely and include obviously notable cocktails like Margarita and Bloody Mary. {{pb}} More importantly, the keep arguments ask us to disregard  for this subject, but I see no policy-based reason for doing so. The community has adopted no guideline or even precedent which states that cocktails are presumed to be notable because they are IBA official, so we fall back onto GNG. "I find it useful, and think there's no harm" is not a valid keep rationale because of : Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cocktail reference. Perhaps GNG is an "abysmally written guideline", but a single AfD here cannot override that general guideline (). At the end of the day, the fundamental principle here is the following: we presume that a subject is worth writing about if reliable sources have found the subject worth writing about. There are some sources that mention the subject in passing, and a Google Books search seems to find it included in at least one cocktail recipe book, e.g. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cocktails_by_Flavor/ZxVpuzomH-EC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Spicy+Fifty%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA14&printsec=frontcover (p. 153). Unfortunately, this kind of coverage isn't enough to support standalone notability, but it may be enough to include it in a list (perhaps List of IBA official cocktails could be refactored with brief descriptions of each drink, instead of just being a list of links). Overall, the arguments for deleting this article appear to be stronger than those for keeping it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:GNG||WP:NOT||WP:CONLIMITED)

Comment: for the reasons given by delete voters. Mainly the sources aren't good enough to pass  and arguing that all "IBA Official Cocktails" are notable is a non-starter IMO. So, there's no reason to have an article about this IMO
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)