Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink

    Add links
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    AZ Sort.svg
    Deletion Sorting
    Project

    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:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Food and drink.
    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:
    Purge page cache watch

    Food and drink[edit]

    Skyline Restaurant[edit]

    Skyline Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, just a few local WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS is not enough to establish notability. --woodensuperman 13:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Delete Agree with the nominator. Although the reviews used as sources appear to be independent and reliable per WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS, they vary in depth and significance and are all local publications. The article itself just says its a restaurant that has received "generally" positive reviews. None of this suggests anything other than WP:MILL, which does not establish a level of notability that would justify a standalone article. Dfadden (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment The Oregonian is not merely local media; it is the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, and the de facto newspaper of record for the state of Oregon. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It hardly establishes notability in this case though does it? The one reference in this article from this newspaper is an article listing some of the best places to get a milkshake in the state!!! Not exactly the in depth coverage that WP:SIRS calls for is it? --woodensuperman 14:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Did you try searching for other Oregonian coverage before nominating? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment I'm a neutral party looking at this article in isolation and I dont live in the USA (im a burger fan which led me here). At the time of my vote, there was no under construction tag. I looked at the article's edit history and saw little major expansion work had been done since October 2021 before the AfD nomination. Granted the Oregonian may have broad circulation, but the articles don't really cover why this place is significant other than having decent milkshakes. I did do a cursory google search before voting and I'm not convinced by the expanded article (break-ins and power outages can affect any business!) that it is not a "run of the mill" diner yet. My vote remains delete. But I agree with other comments that perhaps this should be developed in a draft space to avoid premature AfDs? Dfadden (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: I have added an "under construction" tag and will be expanding this article. This is a continuation of a mass nomination of Portland restaurant entries, and I doubt a proper source assessment has been completed before jumping to AfD. Nominator may disagree and that's fine, my point is this article is a work in progress and I hope others will complete a thorough review of sourcing before voting on a stub. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Have you considered maybe creating these in draft space first then waiting for others' opinions on whether they meet notability, rather than creating as a stub in mainspace? Whilst I commend the quality and commitment in your work, it seems like you have created a great number of articles that are just WP:Run-of-the-mill. Not every restaurant in Portland is notable. --woodensuperman 15:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      No one thinks every restaurant in Portland is notable. This has been discussed so much lately because of mass nominating of Portland restaurant articles. I'm not interested in commenting further. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Delete, agreeing with the nominator. I cannot find anything that deems this restaurant notable, even if the article was well-developed. The Oregonian's list does not include WP:SIGCOV of the restaurant, too. Tirishan (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). This is a continuation of Portland restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily. Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the city's restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local, regional, and national publications providing in-depth coverage of the business, which is many decades old. I've asked the nominator to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. Based on sufficient coverage, this entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Oregon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep: Nom is a stretch of the interpretation of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, as is just a few local [reviews]. I don't disagree that we don't want to get too far afield, but this doesn't meet the threshold for deletion; redirection, maybe, but not deletion. Does the article need work? Sure. But that's a reason to work on the article's shortcomings, not a reason to delete. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep It is just sad some people spend all their time nominating and attacking quality articles by Another Believer (instead of trying to improve the wiki in their own field of knowledge). Coldbolt (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep, obvious keep, per sourced material. As for the Portland travel guide accusation, since all of these articles are adequate, the actual sentiment could be that Portland is lucky that Another Believer focuses on it (just one of many notable topics that AB brings to Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Dockside Saloon and Restaurant[edit]

    Dockside Saloon and Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, just a few local WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS is not enough to establish notability. --woodensuperman 12:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Spella Caffè[edit]

    Spella Caffè (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, just a few local WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS is not enough to establish notability. --woodensuperman 12:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Bipartisan Cafe[edit]

    Bipartisan Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, just a few local WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS is not enough to establish notability. --woodensuperman 12:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --woodensuperman 12:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Oregon. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). This is a continuation of Portland restaurant entries mass-nominated for deletion unnecessarily. Like prior attempts to gut coverage of the city's restaurant industry, I have no choice but to assume nominator did not complete a thorough source assessment before jumping to AfD because I very easily found many reliable local and regional publications and other industry outlets providing in-depth coverage of the business. I've asked the nominator to please post concerns on talk pages before mass-nominating and jumping to AfD. Based on sufficient coverage, this entry should be kept and expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Horse Brass Pub[edit]

    Horse Brass Pub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Looks like a great pub, but really don't think a few local reviews are enough to establish its notability. WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE; WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS. --woodensuperman 12:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Twisted Croissant[edit]

    Twisted Croissant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Surely this fails WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS? All coverage is from a single state, this is hardly getting wide-ranging or national coverage. --woodensuperman 12:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Note: Have just spotted that there is a ton of these at Category:Bakeries of Oregon. If these were local bands, or local bars, etc., they'd easily fail WP:N, I can't see as this is any different. They seem more suitable for WikiVoyage or something. Maybe we should use this as a test case, and then review the rest. --woodensuperman 12:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Further note: Crap. Category:Dive bars in Portland, Oregon. I think the whole Category:Restaurants in Portland, Oregon tree needs to be looked at closely. --woodensuperman 12:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Queijo coalho grelhado[edit]

    Queijo coalho grelhado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    A one-sentence page about a Brazilian dish that appears to be the same as Queijo coalho, only grilled ("grelhado"). There are no sources. There is no such page in the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, either. MartinPict (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Essência[edit]

    Essência (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Another non-notable entry by an editor known for their controversial take on WP:N. Here, WP:NOTGUIDE again. A "star" in a travel guide plus promotional entries in local press are insufficient for the relatively high bar of WP:NCOMPANY. — kashmīrī TALK 18:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    1. The Budapest Business Journal article contains no in-depth coverage at all, focusing instead on minor trivialities:

    Gwendal Poullennec, the Michelin Guide's international director, said both restaurants are "marvelous examples of Budapest's dynamic restaurant sphere" that "offer outstanding courses while paying tribute to Hungarian culinary traditions".
    The guide calls Essencia, run by Portuguese chef Tiago Sabarigo and his Hungarian wife Éva, "a bright, warmly run and deliciously different restaurant".
    It praises Salt, the brainchild of chef Szilárd Tóth, for its "intricate, exquisitely constructed dishes".
    The Hungarian capital is now home to seven Michelin-starred restaurants. The others are Babel, Borkonyha Winekitchen, Costes, Costes Downtown and Stand.
    The latest edition of the Michelin Guide has added six "Michelin Plate" restaurants - a designation for establishments that have neither a star nor a Bib Gourmand - in Budapest, bringing the total to 18. They include Hoppá! Bistro, Felix, Stand25 Bisztro, Spago by Wolfgang Puck, Rumour and Pasztell.

    2. The Chef & Pincer article is entirely an interview, making it non-independent & very primary.
    3. The Hungary Today article is a list of many restaurants and lacks in-depth coverage. It's also very short:

    Also in Budapest is Essência, run by a Portuguese chef living in Hungary, Tiago Sabarigo and his wife, Éva Sabarigo. The menus available here, titled At Home Here, and at Home There, refer to the mixed-ethnicity couple, with ingredients including octopus, mackerel, cod for the Portuguese menu, and traditional potato dumplings (dödölle), a traditional brown meat sauce (vadas), and Hungarian honey cake for the Hungarian one. The five-course menu is also priced at 34,900 forints (EUR 85), wine pairing is also available, bringing the price to 52,900 forints (EUR 130), and guests should expect to pay a 15 percent service charge as well.

    4. The Travel Guys article is negative in coverage and also focuses on minor trivialities, lacking any information on the actual restaurant, its history, its cultural impact, or any other meaningful aspect; the review instead analyzes someone's dislike of the food served:

    As part of a family lunch in Budapest, my wife and I chose a starred restaurant in the city, Essencia, located near the basilica and its very nice Christmas market.
    A look back at this disappointing experience. As a reminder, here is the itinerary followed:
    The recently starred restaurant is based on a Hungarian-Portuguese fusion. Interesting on paper.
    The decoration of the restaurant is very pleasant. Totally up to date, it is composed of light wood furniture, and Portuguese reminders distributed in the restaurant like a beautiful wall of azulejos.
    Having visited the restaurant at lunchtime, the property offers a lunch menu, with a choice of 2 or 3 courses.
    We will opt for the 3 courses formula for a little more than 17€ (yes, in a starred restaurant…) but with many supplements for some dishes.
    As a starter, I choose the Mangalicsa ham, a very high quality pork, served with a toast of sourdough bread and black olives. Good, but very far from the level expected from a Michelin-starred property.
    For the main course, I choose the sea food rice, which is quite good but rather nauseating. Flavors that don’t play well together.
    For dessert, I chose a lemon tart, which was certainly good, but not particularly dazzling.
    The service is very good and attentive.
    The restaurant was almost deserted when we visited, but we had a good time with our family.
    A beautiful place, but a very disappointing culinary experience. Not at all worthy of a Michelin star.

    5. This YouTube source from Michelin Guide's channel isn't reliable and is an interview.
    I will note that earning a Michelin Star doesn't automatically make a restaurant notable. I will also note that even if a source contains large amounts of text pertaining to the subject, it can only prove notability if it's reliable, independent, and contains significant amounts of in-depth coverage. Notability needs to be demonstrated through the existence of reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that significantly cover the subject per WP:CORPDEPTH; if the information in a source is very trivial, it can't prove the subject is notable (see also WP:SIRS). —Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep: additional sources from Daily News Hungary and Hungarian Insider, which are both national publications. Some others (e.g. this BBJ article don't have much coverage, but might still be WP:SIGCOV (which only needs to be "more than a trivial mention"). I think we've got enough for WP:NCORP here: there's room to quibble some of the sources for one reason or another, but in my view, however you slice it, we've got multiple, independent, reliable (enough) sources giving WP:SIGCOV of the subject. I'd suggest that there probably should be some Michelin-star based notability guideline: perhaps not simply having one, but we have similar guidelines for people who receive honours recognising them as at the top of their field. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Daily News Hungary looks awfully unreliable. It's not just about the comments under the article – editorial oversight was poor – but their entire staff numbers eight journalists[1] who, as can be seen on clicking their names, typically churn out 6–8 articles a day on any topic imaginable. It's as far from quality journalism as it gets.
    Hungarian Insider is dodgy. It's unrelated to Business Insider, even as it steals its logo style and layout. It offers no list of editorial staff, no address, articles don't mention author names etc.[2] The domain is registered in New Zealand and owner's identity is hidden.[3] The website looks dead anyway – the most recent news piece on its homepage dates to November 2022 and most are from 2019, the year the website was started. I have no time to verify whether it carried original reporting or – much more likely – simply reposted news from elsewhere after translating them into English. In any case, having anything mentioned on www.hungarianinsider.com does not confer an encyclopaedic notability in the slightest. — kashmīrī TALK 20:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Of the two restaurants in Budapest, Essência Restaurant (EUR 25 for a meal per person) got into the top 10, so it was given two paragraphs by Chef’s Pencil. They highlighted that it is run by a Portuguese-Hungarian duo, Tiago and Éva Sabarigo, and guests can enjoy the essence of both cuisines, as Portuguese and Hungarian flavours blend effortlessly in their dishes.

    The Hungarian Insider article also lacks SIGCOV, containing only trivial coverage:

    Essência is run by the Portuguese-Hungarian duo Tiago and Éva Sabarigo, according to Chef’s Pencil. Guests can enjoy the best of Hungarian and Portuguese cuisine by choosing the “fusion” tasting menu, which effortlessly combines the two cultures. The cheapest three-course lunch menu starts from EUR 25 per person. You can also choose from a wide selection of Portuguese and Hungarian wines.

    The problem with these sources is that they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. We can't just look for sources and automatically consider them to be SIGCOV. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial ... coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." No information provided by any of these sources is actually in-depth and detailed. If they were, they'd perhaps analyze the restaurant's operational history, its ownership history, its cultural impact, etc; they focus instead on minor trivialities like food prices and taste, while other sources are routine in coverage. In addition, to determine notability according to SIRS, "individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other." Any one of these sources analyzed on its own fails SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Vincent M. Holt[edit]

    Vincent M. Holt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Biography of a writer, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for writers. The principal notability claim here is that his book exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass for it, but the sourcing isn't getting him over GNG: it consists of one short newspaper blurb from 1885 that verifies the existence of the book without even naming the author at all, and one newspaper article from 2008 that isn't substantively about Vincent Holt or the book, but just glancingly namechecks their existence in the process of being fundamentally about the concept of the same dietary practice that the book was about. So these sources are acceptable but not enough, and he would have to have more than this to actually pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Delete very weak sourcing used, not much found otherwise. The individual existed, but we don't have enough in RS to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Strong delete. The nom sums up the existing sources on the article and other available sourcing perfectly. All the article says about the subject is he wrote a manifesto in 1885. I don't see how any serious statement can be made to keep this. There is nothing notable or important about this in the Wikipedia sense. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Osmow's Shawarma[edit]

    Osmow's Shawarma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

    Osmow's is not notable- there is very little significant media coverage, if any about it. Most media coverage is trivial. It is a small family-business with a handful of locations in Canada. Most information about Osmow's comes from the company itself, or places like Narcity, which are only talking about their food promotions and not why this company is notable. There are fast food places like Shanghai 360 or Villa Madina, which are similar to this one and have a few locations in Canada, and they are not notable enough either (and don't have their own articles on Wikipedia). Therefore, I think that this article should be deleted due to a lack of notability. 747pilot (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I oppose this motion.
    Firstly, I'm not really sure what your definition of "a handful" is. Using your chosen stores for comparison, Villa Madina has 24 locations nationwide, and Shanghai 360 has 22 nationwide. Both of those brands mostly operate within mall food courts. Shanghai 360 doesn't even have a website. Therefore, it makes sense that there is no article about them. I fail to see how they're "similar" to Osmow's in any way. Osmow's, on the other hand, has over 140 locations, and it keeps opening new stores rather quickly. Since this article was written, there's a new location that opened in Winnipeg and that hasn't been updated yet in the article. Not only that, they tend to open a lot of stores in small towns that would never have known what shawarma is and the company has been important in introducing shawarma to the wider Canadian society. I'm not sure how that isn't notable.
    Osmow's has also done advertising campaigns that are pretty much unheard from companies of its size, including the NBA Finals commercial that was mentioned in the article.
    There are a bunch of articles on Wikipedia on Canadian chains that have less locations, less sources, and frankly a large number of them would also have to be deleted if going by the criteria that you listed.
    Secondly, with regards to sourcing, there are other sources that detail its history and its growth that are in the references section of the article. There are only two articles that are about food promotions.
    Andrepoiy (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Andrepoiy: just because they have 140 stores doesn't mean they are notable. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). Notice that a lot of the media coverage is trivial. It's not substantial. Places like Tim Hortons have substantial media coverage and they are notable. But this fast food restaurant just isn't notable. 747pilot (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:GNG. The number of locations a company has doesn't constitute notability. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: a ProQuest search returns dozens of hits. Many are of the form "Osmow's opens new restaurant in [LOCATION]", but a few seem to be more in-depth articles. I cannot access the articles to assess their value. Mindmatrix 17:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Keep - there's decent GNG coverage in the article - the Mississauga News article in particular is excellent. Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: No comments since last relist. Let’s form a stronger consensus here.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Purge server cache

    Proposed deletions[edit]

    Templates for Discussion[edit]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Food_and_drink&oldid=1158981129"