Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Food and drink. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Food and drink|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Food and drink. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Food and drink

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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect, if it can be verified that this is an alternate name. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kobbari Lavuju

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

Fails verification. Unsourced since creation in 2009. Possibly a misspelling of kobbari laddu (coconut jaggery laddu). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Andhra Pradesh. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced and fails verification. Alternatively redirect to Laddu#Coconut_laddu. मल्ल (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2024 (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.

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicoo

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

No google hits for the item or its references. No claim of importance. Previously rejected as a speedy but this looks like a hoax. Secretlondon (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Secretlondon (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put db-hoax on it, the references are characters from The Office... Reywas92^Talk 16:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bbb23, I don't see anything at WP:DP, WP:AFD, or WP:CSD that says a speedy deletion tag should not be added during an AFD. I've done it before, and I don't care if this vandalism page has been around since 2008, it's obviously a hoax created on April Fools Day and should be speedy deleted rather than waste anyone else's time for this to "play out". Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add it to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia Ratnahastin (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2024 (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.

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. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riana Lynn

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

Non-notable "AI pioneer" peddling dubious AI "inventions". Did you know the AI craze has reached foods? This individual has been the recipient of such accolades as "acknowledged in the list of 83 Black founders and investors to know in 2024 by Pitchbook". This is a typical BLP of highly questionable notability that has been jammed full of incidental mentions, paid promotions, self-published source, and listicles which do not contribute to notability. I reviewed a number of the sources looking for anything substantive and came up empty. Setting aside my personal distaste for AI and the notability problems, this is also poorly written boosterism, with cringe-inducing writing such as "In her career, Lynn has graced hundreds of different stages as a public speaker, keynote, and panelist including Keynoting IBM's Innovation conference in 2020, Food AI Summit held in 2023, in Alameda, SXSW future of food in March 2021, and BigIdeasATX3, hosted by Silicon Hills News." I could make a source assessment table, but I'd rather not spend an hour sorting through the 38 low quality references present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources I find are PR items and trade journals. This does feel PROMO, having patents isn't terribly notable; most of the sourcing used in the article is mostly yellow per Source Highlighter, of questionable quality. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Technology, Illinois, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I found WP:SIGCOV in one WP:RS of the subject in the Chicago Tribune and a paragraph in USA Today. I would move this article to Draft so it could be re-written to remove the WP:PROMO tone and include more reliable sources. Some of the aforementioned "yellow" sources, e.g. Cosmopolitan, may be OK. Nnev66 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Chicago Tribune source looks decent, and USA Today is reliable but the extent she's mentioned is below what I'd call significant coverage personally. If editors believe this can be salvaged, I will not oppose draftification. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given Bearian's comment below that this has already been draftified, I change my position on this and prefer deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe someday, but this does not yet merit an article. Fails WP:GNG and lacks adequate WP:RS citations. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it’s already been draftified once. TOOSOON and TNT. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2024 (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.

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. Star Mississippi 01:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Hyun Kim (businessman)

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

Fails WP:BIO. The sources are more about his food chain Wasabi (restaurant) rather than significant coverage of Kim. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, South Korea, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found three articles from major platforms mentioning about him.

https://www.ft.com/content/d633fb5e-66dd-11e2-a805-00144feab49a

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/korea-opportunities-once-asia-s-least-trendy-food-now-everyone-s-getting-in-on-the-kimchi-act-8944580.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/12/kim-dong-hyun-seoul-stylish-senior-citizens Christianjbotella12 (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't regard this as WP:SIGCOV. And this seems to be about a namesake photographer aged 29 in 2022 and not a restauranteur born in 1973 as detailed in this article. Ft.com is behind a pay wall so need more details to assess. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage about him in the sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 17 October 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dogspot

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

Per WP:NSUSTAINED Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The coverage is centered on it receiving some investment from a notable Indian businessman in 2016. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — hako9 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. — hako9 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Websites, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in any of the cited sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There doesn't seem to be significant coverage. A majority of the sources are coverage from a single day about someone investing in the business, and that's all I can find. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:04, 17 October 2024 (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.

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 Draftify‎. asilvering (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Econofoods

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. With only two locations I am unsure if press outside the local area could be found. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, North Dakota, and South Dakota. CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep as a notable-enough regional Iowa supermarket. Some book sources coming up and listings in Plunkett's food industry and retail almanacs, and the Hoover's Handbook of American Business, Handbook of NASDAQ stocks,. Combined with a few of the local news stories about store closings and acquisitions I think this does pass WP:GNG.[1][2] Andre🚐 01:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan:, sorry, just seeing your comment now or would have pinged you earlier. The two you cited from The Register Mail are both about two local stores closing. In fact, they are basically the same (one from the employee perspective and one from the customer perspective). Neither meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the chain itself. The other two are business listings. Are there any references out there you found that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree those sources might not meet a stricter standard, I think it meets GNG, along with the other local news already in the article, and I'm not sure that merging with Nash Finch or SpartanNash is necessary, but I can't see a full-scale delete beyond that merger, and I think other times when companies have been merged it's muddled up the history in a confusing way that could be resolved by treating as separate articles. A regional grocery chain with not a lot of stores can be notable with sourcing that describes it with a bit of narrative as these local stories do, through a local lens, but aren't ROUTINE or press releases. They describe the acquisition of the chain by Nash Finch. “When Nash-Finch came in, I was working in Monmouth. It was my day off and I got the call at home,” Cecil said. He said he started to suffer from burnout as Nash-Finch “dictated” ways of doing business that he didn’t agree with, such as selling select, rather than choice beef. “I was told they were doing less than half the business we were doing in ’98,” Cecil said of Econofoods when it closed. “It didn’t have to happen.” An unlikely place for business analysis perhaps, but there you go. The other one talks about consolidation in the market. This is corroborated by the business almanacs and Moody's listings and other stuff that come up on a Google Books search. As I said, I think it meets GNG, and I think more data could be found in Newspapers.com which has over 20,000 results in Iowa, but I'm at a keep because I believe GNG-level sourcing exists and more could be found for an article here. Andre🚐 06:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. However, as a company, it must meet the standards for companies and do not feel that these references do. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stricter WP:SNG standard for what is presumed notable, but any article is notable if it meets WP:GNG. Unless that has changed, the stricter standard is supplemental. Besides which, the purpose is to keep out promotional articles, not the history of regional supermarkets. Notability as a guideline has interpretation, but it's not WP:IAR to use GNG instead of CORP, because it's a supplemental presumption guideline that doesn't obviate GNG. You are free to still opine delete here of course. WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) Emphasis mine.Andre🚐 05:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless that has changed" - That has not changed so you are quoting the SNG and GNG guidelines correctly. It is interesting as I argued this same contention (the one you present here) years ago but the company deletion discussions have, at least for the last four or five years, applied NCORP over GNG which is the reason for my contention to delete this page. Would be interesting to get a consensus otherwise as it would allow for keeping some pages that would be borderline under NCORP but likely meet GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much guaranteed that when an editor starts arguing to ignore NCORP, its an acknowledgement that the topic fails the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Andre said. ^Wiinter_U 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also relevant that both Keep !voters acknowledge that the sourcing fails NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Objections to a Move to Draft either if somebody thinks there are enough sources out there.... HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide time for further research and potential expansion. Newspapers.com returns 34,082 matches for "Econofoods", though at first glance many are advertisements and many are for uses other than this subject. Nonetheless, some are substantive articles addressing this article subject, and a deeper dive might uncover enough to meet NCORP. BD2412 T 00:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I know it's a view that also gets put forward at DRV every so often, but I am thus far unconvinced it is a rational interpretation of the guidelines to obviate the entire force of NCORP for every article it could possibly apply to. No objection to delete either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be drafted per @HighKing & alpha3031. 2603:8001:7106:C515:7811:9D52:2B0E:FC2C (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kwality Wall's

AfDs for this article:

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

doesn't have enough reliable sources to prove that the brand is significant or notable in the ice cream market Slarticlos (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely notable. Try reading this source for a name. It has gained WP:SIGCOV for ages. Lorstaking (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable and has gained widespread significant coverage as visible from here and here. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 17 October 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verwurelter

Purge server cache

Proposed deletions

Templates for Discussion