Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Food and drink: Difference between revisions

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.

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:

The Whisky Distilleries of the United Kingdom (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 · TWL)

Does not seem notable based on WP:BEFORE Kingsacrificer (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bellwether Coffee (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 · TWL)

Unsignificant coverage in coffee-centred websites, two WP:ROUTINE techcrunch funding notices, and other borderline promo sources([1]). Nothing that meets SIGCOV here. MightyRanger (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Tea Party (café chain) (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 · TWL)

AfD due to previous PROD nomination.

There is insufficient evidence of notability for Boston Tea Party, the only notable thing the company has done is won a single award, which in itself is unlikely to be sufficient to meet the strict notability requirements for Wikipedia.

Additionally, there a distinct lack of secondary references that are entirely independent of the business and not just PR (e.g meal reviews by local newspapers) or passing mentions. GeekBurst (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maggi noodles safety concerns in India (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 · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. The event has failed to gain any lasting coverage. Wareon (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At least the J Consumer Behaviour and J Int’l Management publications are peer reviewed. I would be interested to know why, after doing required WP:BEFORE searches the nominator declared there was no continuing coverage. Oblivy (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WineFi (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 · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Finance, Companies, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SERIESA. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably, more detailed comment on the sources is needed. 1. Is about a new hire, trivial coverage. 2. WP:FORBESCON, I’ve never seen coverage such as this being taken seriously at AfD. 3. Brief mention. 4. gov.uk database. 5. Brief mention. 6. Based on an interview with the founders, fails WP:ORGIND. 7. Funding round, trivial. 8. Started a partnership with another company, based on a press release. 9. Launched an investment syndicate. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep-the one currently from this and from a Forbes article seems to be SIGCOV enough.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is one of the few wine investment platforms out there that is covered by multiple RS. Digital wine investment is a relatively new area, so naturally you just won’t find many dozens of top-tier news citations, but that doesn’t mean the article should be deleted. When put in context, WineFi is actually quite notable in the wine investment area. There are also FT, The Telegraph, and many more well-known news outlets that mention WineFi. Additionally, as mentioned above, WineFi is in Harper’s and Forbes. It’s not a very old company, but it definitely stands out in a small niche with very few other notable companies. Atlanticatticus (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Atlanticatticus (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Harpers in an interview, so fails WP:ORGIND. Forbes is written by a contributor so its non-rs. The FT is a passing mention and quote to the boss which fails WP:ORGIND. The Telegraph is a number of quotes from Callum Woodcock of Winefi. Its not independent. So they are terrible references and don’t satisfy WP:SIRS/WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 19:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes ref is by a contributor. Its non-rs. scope_creep^Talk 01:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep that’s not entirely correct. Forbes contributor means the contributor should be a subject-matter expert with reliability judged seperately from the publication. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I’ve done a few of these Afd’s before. Yes and no, but its generally discounted. There is coi concerns that are never usually addressed here. Magically somebody turns to write an article when some event is going on, or some product released, so Forbes is an avenue for promo and is dreck. If you have other references post them up, instead of relying on a reference type from an organisation that is widely viewed as unreliable and non-rs by Wikipedians who attend WP:AFD. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Over 4,000 it would appear. 🙂 Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Baratza (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 · TWL)

The article fails to align with WP:NCORP. The company is a recognized name in coffee equipment, but the sourcing provided is business news or consumer-facing product reviews. So does not align with the WP:CORPDEPTH, as these does not essentially establish the notability of the corporation itself. There is a lack of independent, secondary sources that provides significant coverage of the company. SanneMonte (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Purge server cache