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

Prestige Hong Kong

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

Article that has been effectively unsourced from its creation in 2007. Not finding anything on a Google search (string: ["prestige hong kong" -prestigeonline.com]) or anything passable as a source in history (SOPA is 404-compliant, https://web.archive.org/web/20160304052630/http://www.sinarmasprintawards.com/english/all.asp seems thoroughly broken). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Wine, Fashion, Popular culture, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milind Sovani

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

Vanity page, which is mostly filled with promotional content and links to social media sites, and coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking. Article would need to be rewritten entirely if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GreenPalm

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

This article is currently a poorly sourced brochure for this certification program. We are presented with GreenPalm's own website, a "sustainability report", and an article from "Food Navigator USA", which does not satisfy notability. I did a brief search myself, and turned up a couple of passing mentions but nothing substantial. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Environment, and Estonia. MediaKyle (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burger King foot lettuce

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

Not enough significant coverage beyond a few contemporary articles released at the time of the meme's creation thus fails WP:GNG. HookFTW (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It actually does fulfil WP:GNG because it does have sources from years after its creation. (Indeed, I even found one published yesterday just now about it), thus confirms it does have WP:SUSTAINED coverage to meet GNG. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG Jdn2004 (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Internet, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed that unlike many memes, this one has stood the test of time in terms of ongoing coverage, which I think the article demonstrates. One could argue the title should be "Burger King foot lettuce internet meme."

Dflovett (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just what Wikipedia is for. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this internet meme is certainly notable to have continued coverage past its height in popularity. Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps I'm a bit biased, but a look at the sources, even at the time of AFD, shows two sig cov reliable sources ([1][2]) from long after the incident, and, along with the Stuff article (reliable per WP:NEWSORG) and a blurb in a Mashed article should be more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has stood the test of time and meets WP:GNG. I also found some useful sources not yet in the article: [3] [4] [5] [6] jolielover♥talk 07:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. TheBritinator (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Memes can meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and therefore, merit inclusion on Wikipedia. There was an attempt to remove Hawk tuah recently as well. There isn't a special carveout in the rules that means memes are more worthy of deletion than other notable things. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although to recent attention is due to the subject's death, it has long–term notability and meets WP:GNG. 53 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Pott

AfDs for this article:

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

The entire article is filled with either unimportant information or promotional information. There seems to be no reason for him to have his own page. The biggest still existent source I could find is this small piece in forbes about his wine not even about him. Every article is about his wine and his credentials are only brought up to promote the wines.

The most notable thing about him is the prize he won, however I have no clue how notable "Food & Wine" is in the landscape of wine judging. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Wine. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Pott in 2008. It was a keep, but a weak one and only 3 participants contributes, only 2 explicitly voted.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article by their Senior Wine Critic [7] and here [8]. Article badly needs updating though. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three articles is enough for WP:NBASIC. 🄻 🄰 14:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gianduja (commedia dell'arte)

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

I've removed the sources of this article because they weren't related to the article itself. The page should now be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacktheBrown (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the fate of this page, it was improper to delete the entire contents. I restored the last content that was cut, except its irrelevant reference. References used before cutdown by nom were: ^[1]^[2]^[3]. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Italian Trade Commission "Acqui or Brachetto d'Acqui (DOCG) Archived 2011-03-14 at the Wayback Machine" Italianmade.com Accessed: March 5, 2011.
^ Focus on Gianduia, Part 1.5: Orthography and Pronunciation
^ The 18th Century Stock Masks

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Theatre. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it:Gianduja has plenty of sources, including full length books. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense unreferenced stub, or move to Wiktionary. If you want to save this article. Nothing would be lost by deleting this stub. If this is a notable subject, then someone who care about it should write something coherent. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a coherent article there previously. To the nominator: Next time I would suggest using other tags like {{citation needed}} if you're having trouble finding reliable sources to verify unsourced claims. ("Link doesn't work" is also not always a reason to delete references outright; often, those very links can be recovered via the Wayback Machine and other tools.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. The Italian version of the article has many sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now re-expanded and fully sourced now. Book sources were easily found on the Internet Archive like this one. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as "I've removed the sources, the page should now be deleted" is not a valid reason for deletion. What happened to WP:BEFORE? Even a cursory glance at the relevant Italian wikipedia page (and its extensive bibliography) makes it clear the topic is (extremely) notable. Kudos to Cielquiparle for improving the page. --Cavarrone 11:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a reason to delete. It's a start of an article. I've seen much, much worse kept. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid topic, encyclopedic treatment and abundance of sources. Mccapra (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gianduiotto

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

In my opinion, it makes no sense to keep two very similar articles; either delete the gianduiotto page (with only one source, which refers to Nutella (?)) or merge it with gianduja. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacktheBrown (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only two non-trivial, independent pieces could be located. The only English-language hit is a single paragraph in a Guardian travel puff piece. Such routine/trivial mentions do not constitute the “significant coverage” required.Dahawk04 Talk 💬 23:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Searching just one paper, La Stampa, on Google via "site:lastampa.it "gianduiotto"" finds plenty of coverage. More can be found in my sandbox, where I'm currently researching gianduja (chocolate). It may be good to merge the two pages, but hopefully such a discussion can be delayed until I finish digging up all relevant sources. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All cited material is routine or tangential:
- Oxford Companion to Sugar & Sweets – ~150 words inside the broader gianduja entry.
- Kopp, Lebovitz, Roden – one-paragraph mentions in general chocolate guides.
- Padovani Mondo Nutella – incidental, not independent of industry.
- La Stampa hits – festival blurbs & shop promos; routine local news.
None amount to the “significant coverage in reliable, independent sources” demanded by WP:GNG. Suitable as citations within Gianduja (chocolate), but not enough for a standalone page. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 13:32, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside discussions of the other sources, three La Stampa hits that contribute to GNG are [9][10][11]. I picked these off the first page of Google, none are close to "festival blurbs & shop promos; routine local news", they are all in depth discussions of industry and history, with significant discussion that is about gianduiotto rather than gianduja generally. I'll note per [12] that "the gianduiotto praline was the first chocolate ever to be individually wrapped."

Dahawk04, if you would like, when I've finished the research and added sources, would you like me to notify you and you can more fully evaluate whether coverage is insufficient? There is WP:NORUSH for merging. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 13:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are very famous chocolates in Italy, originating from Turin, the Italian wiki article has many more sources, on top of that the CNN travel article that was recently added to the page and also this French article ^[1] show that they have received in depth coverage outside of Turin local news. Giuliotf (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello everybody, I'm an Italian from Piedmont. I can confirm that gianduiotti are very famous nationwide. People from Turin and in general from hazelnut producing provinces in the south of the region are proud of it, but is not just a local niche product, everybody knows them, and you can find a lot of sources just searching on the internet. I think is enough to mantain an article separate from gianduja. If this my help to clarify the notability of those chocolate, which have e precise shape and size, they are listed as PAT (see reference) by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forests, while gianduja is not. --Phyrexian ɸ 18:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torta Bertolina

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

Not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacktheBrown (talk • contribs) 12:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with weak support for Draftify. There isn't much substantial information I could find and the current page is a sparsely sourced stub

Dahawk04 Talk 💬 19:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Italy. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flies' graveyard

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

No apparent significant coverage, just passing mentions. This and multiple variations (fly cakes, fly pies, fly cemetery) appear to be no more than a general nickname for any pastry that contains currants or raisins, almost none of which have articles. Maybe redirect to Garibaldi biscuit? Valereee (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Fruit slice, which appears to be the commonest name. They're definitely a thing, but this is far from being the commonest name for them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure “fruit slice" ought to refer to a piece of fruit that has been sliced.Hyperbolick (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really commonly known as a fruit slice though! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I would redirect to Eccles Cake but I imagine there might be some dispute between regional editors over the correct target. Orange sticker (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orange sticker, perhaps a DAB? Valereee (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Gur cake, which is essentially the Irish name for the same confection as a fruit slice. Although Eccles cake is similar, and is often referred to as "dead fly cake", searching on this title mostly finds this as a term used for the Scottish confection that is substantially the same as the Irish one, and I am not sure if Eccles cake is ever referred to by this name (equally, Garibaldi and fruit shortcake biscuits are dead fly biscuits, but not this). The Gur cake page already mentions the name. There is a fruit slice DAB already, so Necrothesp's suggestion cannot be enacted, and, in any case, we have no sources here, and we have a sourced page about the same confection, so this is a content fork driven by the informal name. Pinging Orange sticker to see if they agree. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename - too easy to confuse with WikiProject Cemeteries. — Maile (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redirect to one of the appropriate articles. Metallurgist (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are too many suggested target article redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how one redirect target could be chosen, therefore this needs to be a disambiguation page with all the suggestions listed. Geschichte (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gur cake, this and fruit slice are all names for the same thing. The current disambiguation at Fruit slice lists this, Gur cake and Fruit snack. But Fruit snack makes no mention of this name, nor of fruit slice. Eccles cake similarly doesn't mention it. Garibaldi biscuits did, but the name is not in the cited source, which calls them dead fly biscuits or squashed fly biscuits. I have fixed that page now. So it seems to me that the solution is really that the Fruit Slice is the primary topic for a single confection that is called a Fruit Slice and Gur Cake (and Cacen Pwdin in Wales and Flies graveyard too). Rather than a disambiguation, a merge makes much more sense. Merge Gur cake and Flies graveyard into Fruit slice, overwriting the unnecessary disambiguation. Eccles cake and Garibaldi biscuits should be see alsos. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The VIP List

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Article is of low quality as well. Joejose1 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources from Vice, Rolling Stone, Delish, and Bon Appetit seem sufficient for WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 18:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite mentions in some media, it may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline and requires more reliable secondary sources independent --Killviconiborki (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Family (food company)

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

I came across this article after seeing Draft:HealthyBaby at AfC. I don't see anything here except primary sources, passing mentions, and routine coverage. In my WP:BEFORE I was unable to find any independent, secondary coverage upon which to build an article. The article history suggests that this was created for promotional purposes, and its primary author is blocked for "inappropriate emails". MediaKyle (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much growth or coverage since 2012. Author was also found to be a sockpuppet of Morning277. Looks purely promo so should be on the chopping block imo Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can find independent sources on this company: [13], [14], [15]. The third is probably RS, but I don't know about the other two. Based on the other articles they publish, they look rather uncritical and fluffy. If these sources could be shown to be RS, I would suggest keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first is not as it is written by a contributor. The second looks like some kind of blog of commercial website so would not see it as reliable. The third, byline from an editor, from Inc. would be in-depth and reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Shazi Visram. The majority of the sources focus on her and the founding of the company, such as this and even the Inc. reference mentioned previously. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purge server cache

Proposed deletions

Templates for Discussion

^ Fabrice Liégard (13 December 2021). ":Transfrontières : le gianduiotto, un petit "lingot d'or" piémontais, roi des chocolats de Noël en Italie". France Info (in French).

[Italian-made-1] Italian Trade Commission "Acqui or Brachetto d'Acqui (DOCG) Archived 2011-03-14 at the Wayback Machine" Italianmade.com Accessed: March 5, 2011.

[2] Focus on Gianduia, Part 1.5: Orthography and Pronunciation

[3] The 18th Century Stock Masks

[4] Fabrice Liégard (13 December 2021). ":Transfrontières : le gianduiotto, un petit "lingot d'or" piémontais, roi des chocolats de Noël en Italie". France Info (in French).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]