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]
Merge: The pizza chain's story fails WP:NORG. Yet, it intertwines with its founder's story. Merging would allow for a complete look at Akdeniz's story, showing his notable impact on the business. It would focus on the narrative where it fits best and avoid making promotional content separate from its context.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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]
a 16-year old hoax is still a hoax!! albeit a believable one. Delete.FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if that came off as sarcastic, I was genuinely remarking on how long the hoax existed. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:47, 20 June 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.
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. It's actually a WP:A7 candidate - any importance of the palace is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED, and there's no claim to notability as a (private culinary) school, noting the application of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to schools of significant size but not sizable significance. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:50, 21 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:45, 21 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 guidelines or WP:NCORP. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]