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.
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:
I'm not sure if we should keep and merge Hakki Akdeniz into this article, or merge this article into Hakki Akdeniz. There's a good amount of coverage because it's a good story: immigrant comes to NYC, deals with homelessness, hustling at a pizza restaurant, becomes really good at making pizza, opens his own pizzeria, becomes very successful, and donates tons of pizzas to the homeless. Having an article about Akdeniz -- an article I suspect has some paid editing behind it -- seems more promotional than including the story as part of this article? But at the same time, the story is more about the man than the store, I guess. Tough call. There's definitely at least one notable subject, though. I think I lean towards keeping and merging here. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 11:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hakki Akdeniz. The sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. The Forbes article was written by a contributor so not WP:RS, Newsfile and the Yahoo articles are press releases, Pizza Today is a trade publication (WP:TRADES) and Creative Loafing is a routine announcement. The Long Island Press article is ok but is mostly about him and largely based on what he says. I would say merge but the content is already covered in Hakki Akdeniz and incorrect (it was founding in 2009 not 2019). S0091 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence this term is actually in use. Both references are not for the actual subject of the article. Google returns basically nothing. Google books returns nothing relevant. Best I can tell this is not a real thing. BrokenSegue 01:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete this does appear to be a hoax. Simply nothing other than a few social media mentions, a cake shop in New Zealand that uses it in the name, etc. The article currently has two sources:
searching in Google Books[1] version of Cinderella Dreams for the term yields no result
searching for the term in the Sugarpaste reference yields no hit[2] - even if this is a failing of OCR if it was used a few times I think we'd see it
Delete and add to WP:HOAXLIST: An IP editor who claims to be the page creator said it was likely a hoax: [3]Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 16 years old, making it quite a long-lasting hoax. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch☎✎ 08:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage in high quality, reliable, independent sources. All coverage is blog posts, recipes and local review posts. — HTGS (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found some (old) coverage independent of business but not significant and reliable coverage per WP:Notability that establishes notability worth of an article, even in stub form, in my opinion. The business is no longer operational and permanently closed and even when open was a very small local brewery in New Zealand not notable or well known to the public (lived there for 15 years). I raised a PROD recently on this article but was not aware that there had been a previous failed PROD long before oldprods were added to talk pages, hence an AfD. Whisky and more (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "established in December 1993. It is no longer in operation." and nothing much else pretty well says it all. Bduke (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Not much exposure outside of the region it originated in. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe removing this article is the best course of action. The information provided indicates the subject lacks notability. Waqar💬 17:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and no sigcov. Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously deleted, then re-created. Nothing seems to have changed to establish notability. The article cites four sources but the 1st, 3rd and 4th are press releases, on trade blogs that will publish anything about products. The 2nd is a very trivial mention. None of these would seem to establish notability under WP:CORP. Might be eligible for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted content, but I can't view what was deleted and it was a long time ago. Here2rewrite (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All available sources are press releases (and other primary sources), WP:TRADES publications for the dairy/packaged foods industries that do not qualify for WP:NCORP, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in online reviews of yogurts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items and trade journal mentions of this product. Agree that what's used now in the article isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented. Thank you. Stockbroker369 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a food, drink place LOL. This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg. Stockbroker369 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd maybe look at CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right). That editor's analysis is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD. - UtherSRG(talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, how about you add the sources yourself instead? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly. It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.
There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources. Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that. There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year. The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course. Good day. - UtherSRG(talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stockbroker369 This is an interesting article. It would be to your advantage if you could add a couple of more inline sources. Preferably in the first two paragraphs. Also images need to have the description on them like I just added. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It is possible that this is heading toward a consensus to keep the article. Please comment on the sources raised in the previous AFD and whether the subject meets the general notability guidelinesorWP:NCORP. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After attempting to clean up the article (with resistance), it has instead become apparent that it's a pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP. The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either.
TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.
Delete I agree with the IP editor. I tried to protect this article from spam promotion, but I did not stop to consider that the available reliable sources were non-existent. Be done with it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially thought the article might have a bit of notability but on a deeper analysis it is true the article is very weak and should be deleted Wiiformii (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks tasty, but GNG doesn't stand for generalized noshing guidelines. Actually mildly surprised by how little independent coverage about a place with this many locations, but if the sources don't exist, neither can the entry. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already stated of lack of notability. The article hasn't gotten any better in the eight years since it was created (compare) and is unlikely to in future, short of a radical change of circumstances for the subject. — Scott•talk 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the anonymous editor's unofficial-turned-official nomination statement. I did my best to correct the issues others raised only to find that once I'd cleared the article of junk, there was barely anything left. It's frustrating because while I understand others' notability concerns, I'm skeptical that a restaurant chain with dozens of locations has little to no potential to get there. CityofSilver 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a UK fast food chain with 44 branches. Mostly in London, but as far north as Northampton, and as far south as the Isle of Wight. No one has done a proper WP:BEFORE search. There are plenty more sources out there. For example:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further input on the sources presented by Edwardx? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I don't see a rough consensus although the discussion is trending towards Delete until new sources were brought into the discussion. An assessment of them would be helpful. Looking at this article, it has been the subject of numerous edit wars for some reason. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some questionable (no Wiki link since local) additional sources but the County Press and The Guardian are notable. DareshMohan (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviews of individual outlets is not a basis for establishing notability of the company. If it was, it would appear in NCORP guidelines. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. HighKing++ 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
