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.

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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Food and drink[edit]

Affiliated Foods[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There is also Affiliated Foods Midwest and Affiliated Foods Southwest so it can be difficult sorting through the references available, but I could not find anything that shows how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Texas. CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegepet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY, references are either non-independent or trivial. I did search for the company but found nothing in Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News that'd lead me to believe it qualifies for GNG. Multiple references were added after a PROD but after reviewing all but three (one was an improper citation and the other was a broken url) I am still of the opinion it fails notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment review of references below.

Going through all the references I do not believe WP:GNG has been met with the changes.

Extended content

Compassion Circle sells the product, therefore not independent.
The 2023 systematic review of vegetarian pet food does not mention Vegepet.
The PETA citation is a search result and thus not a proper citation and it's unreasonable to expect anyone to look at over 300 results to verify anything.
References 4-8 do not mention Vegepet.
"Keep Your Pet Healthy the Natural Way" does not mention Vegepet.
I have not checked the 1988 book but I doubt it mentions Vegepet given it only existed for two years, if anyone can verify please do.
Sustainable Pet Food Association doesn't mention Vegepet.
Refs 13-14 don't appear to mention it but wouldn't qualify as establishing notability due to not being reliable.
The claim that the Vegan Sourcebook 'includes detailed information on VegePet' is quite false, it's a one paragraph advertisement in the appendix. Advertisements don't establish notability.
James Peden's book is self-published.
Vegetarian versus Meat-Based Diets for Companion Animals is an MDPI journal with the author of it being the author of the website, he's referencing and advertising himself in a 'scientific' journal.
This reference, once again to the SPFA, does not mention Vegepet.
The reference to Compassion Circle is not independent and cannot establish notability
The AVMA is seemingly the only good reference in this article, but I don't see an article reviewing the nutritional adequacy of the product as establishing GNG
Vegepet itself cannot establish it's own notability
The Guardian article isn't about Vegepet.
Refs 23-29 do not appear to mention Vegepet.
Reference from earlier that doesn't mention Vegepet.

31-32 Don't mention Vegepet anywhere.

First article hosted on Researchgate doesn't mention Vegepet and the latter is a broken link.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Vegepet" merits inclusion in Wikipedia due to several reasons:

Notable Subject: Vegepet is a significant topic within the realm of veganism and pet care, addressing the growing interest in providing vegan diets for pets.
Relevant Information: The article provides valuable information about the concept of vegetarian and vegan pet food, contributing to the understanding of alternative diets for pets.
Community Interest: There is evident interest in the subject, as demonstrated by the ongoing discussion and contributions from Wikipedia users. This indicates that the topic is relevant and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Educational Value: Including information about Vegepet aligns with Wikipedia's goal of providing comprehensive and informative content to its readers. It allows individuals to learn about different dietary options for pets and the ethical considerations involved.
Neutral Presentation: The article presents information in a neutral manner, providing facts and references to support its content. It adheres to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding neutrality and verifiability.

Given these reasons, the article "Vegepet" should be retained on Wikipedia to continue serving as a valuable resource for individuals interested in vegetarian and vegan pet food options. MaynardClark (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write that yourself? What you have presented here looks like something an AI would write. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article MaynardClark (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) I would like to know where this slice of vegetarian and vegan pet food research fits into the longstanding historical forward movement of the topic. MaynardClark (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are suitable sources then post them: the onus is on you to provide them. I have already done a search for sources too but found nothing. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VegePet "made news" in its time (from the mid-1990s through 2010) by being a pioneering brand in the field of vegan pet nutrition. Developed by Jim Peden and his then-wife, Barbara Lynn Peden, VegePet was among the first to offer plant-exclusive dietary solutions for pets, specifically dogs and cats. This was significant because it addressed the ethical concerns of feeding pets without harming other animals, aligning with the principles of veganism and vegetarianism.

Key Points:

Innovative Approach: VegePet introduced VegeDog and VegeCat, DIY pet food supplements that allowed pet owners to prepare nutritionally complete vegan meals for their pets. This was innovative at a time when commercial vegan pet food options were extremely limited.

Historical Context: The development of VegePet occurred before the widespread use of the Internet, which means it gained traction through word of mouth, niche publications, and communities interested in veganism and ethical pet care.

Media Coverage: Publications like Vegetarian Times mentioned VegePet in several articles, highlighting its role in the emerging market of plant-based pet foods. This helped establish its credibility and spread awareness among vegetarians and vegans who were looking for ethical feeding options for their pets.

Ongoing Development: The Pedens' continuous product development and the eventual competition from other companies entering the plant-exclusive pet food market kept the conversation around vegan pet diets alive, contributing to its historical significance.

Limited Online Presence: Despite its contributions, VegePet is not widely praised on the Internet, possibly due to its early development before the digital age and the rise of newer brands that utilized online marketing strategies more effectively. However, I have found at least two articles in Vegetarian Times that praised VegeDog at the time. This article needs time for more development.MaynardClark (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NORG (particularly WP:NPRODUCT) or WP:GNG. I concur with the source analysis by Traumnovelle. I found one newspaper article that is independent, reliable, and might be considered significant coverage,[1] but it is from 1989, and couldn't find any significant coverage since their initial release (WP:NSUSTAINED). Being mentioned when media outlets write about vegetarian diets and supplements for pets doesn't make it Wikipedia-notable. (If the article is kept, it needs serious pruning to remove unrelated content and promotional content.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has survived an AfD before, and the Wikipedia notability article - WP:GNG - says that Notability does not expire.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article Quite a few 'delete' votes are about (a) current state of sourcing in the article OR (b) whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standards, which is not the WP:GNG we are taught to follow. MaynardClark (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaynardClark, I can't find a previous afd for this article, could you please link to it? Schazjmd (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit misleading to say Quite a few 'delete' votes are about...whether or not the innovative Vegepet product of the 1980s is optimal by today's veterinary nutritional standards since there's only the nominator and me, and neither of us have mentioned veterinary nutritional standards. Schazjmd (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. This is the only AfD. I looked at the first history screen when I had been reviewing the article's history and somehow ended up on the most recent screen. My bad! Sorry. I've been busy with other things and don't really have time for an AfD right now, but I'm pushing myself to look for references. I apologize. That is my error.

Delete. If kept, rename and immprove. It's a poor quality article, full of irrelevant information that is nothing to do with the subject of the article (I have trimmed some of it, but it needs a lot more). I vote for delete, as both the company and product do not meet the notability requirements. If retained I recommend it is moved to Compassion Circle and adapted into an article about the company that includes some appropriate content on the product. Not that the company appears to meet the GNG either. MarcGarver (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verwurelter

List of kosher supermarkets[edit]

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

This list should probably just be a category. It claims to be a list of notable kosher supermarkets, but in actuality we do not have articles on three of the entries. Our own article on H-E-B does not contain the word "kosher" and it's inclusion here is apparently based on one specific store having an extensive kosher section. That leaves two entries if we are actually limiting the list to notable kosher grocers. I believe simply having a category, which already exists and is on the two valid entries, is sufficient without a list article with no real criteria for being listed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Judaism. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like this list is full of WP:ADVERTISEMENTs bordering on WP:NOTADVERT. Conyo14 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I recently commented elsewhere, I have serious doubts as to whether the subject 'kosher supermarket' is even independently notable. Isn't it just the intersection of the set 'places selling kosher food' with an exceedingly-ill-defined 'supermarket' set? We appear to have built a list around a Venn diagram. Anyway, WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies, and anyone looking for say a local supplier of kosher goods would do vastly better to use Google. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump Kosher markets are core to many Jewish communities, particularly Orthodox communities that are strictly shomer kashrut. The presence of a kosher market is almost as important as the presence of a synagogue. It isn't just a meaningless Venn overlap. It is culturally and religiously significant. If there isn't a list, there should still be an article. A kosher supermarket isn't merely a "place that sells kosher food"; you can find a kosher section in almost any major grocery store. Whereas a kosher supermarket certified by a local vaad, that is supervised by mashgichim, that closes from Friday evening to Saturday evening...is something quite specific and defining. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the list does it define 'kosher supermarket' in the terms that you describe. Properly sourced, an article on culturally and religiously significant, certified and supervised kosher-only stores would be absolutely appropriate (a list would be too long to be feasible, or useful), but that isn't the subject of this AfD. Instead, what we are discussing is a list of 'places that sell kosher food' that are described as (or call themselves) 'supermarkets'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely a listcruft. Orientls (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A kosher market is an important locus of Jewish communities, particularly Orthodox communities. I would argue that the kosher market is almost as important as the synagogue. At the very least, if not a list, there has to be an article on Kosher supermarkets. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thistle Dew Dessert Theatre[edit]

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

A google search for the topic found only the website, a local guide, and user-generated information. Also I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online, and 6th source is trivial coverage. Therefore not notable. -- unsigned post by EternalNub

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Helping get rid of non-notable articles
Keep: I'd like to AGF that the offline sources are legit, in which case there is SIGCOV. Perhaps an editor with access the relevant archives can verify? -- D'n'B-t -- 10:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to locate one of them, so I'm more confident that the others are legit. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "I couldn't find any of the first 5 sources online" is not an acceptable argument for deletion; see WP:PAPERONLY, which says There is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Restricting editors to using online sources would mean that most of the information in the world would be unavailable to us. Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whoa! According to its website, this is an amateur theatre company with 39 seats performing in a Victorian house. No stage productions are currently scheduled -- it appears mostly to screen movies. It serves dessert with its shows (if they ever have any) and supposedly won a non-notable amateur theatre award. The article notes that a non-notable playwright premiered a non-notable work there. No one involved in it is asserted to be notable. Assuming this is all true, why is this an encyclopedic topic? Its website says that its theatre is available for rental for weddings, parties and classes. This seems to be an extreme case of a run-of the mill community theatre company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it got coverage in The Los Angeles Times in 1999, and the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008. Neither of those are local to Sacramento, so apparently it was a bigger deal in the past than it is today. Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Toughpigs correctly pointed out, sources being offline doesn't matter. Cortador (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purge server cache

Proposed deletions[edit]

Templates for Discussion[edit]