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

2018 US egg recall

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

I think this subject lacks any lasting notability. It was a product recall that happened many years ago and hasn't really had any lasting impact or legacy. While it was big at the time, you'd be hard-pressed (or hard-boiled?) to find contemporary discussion or coverage of this event not even a decade later. Fails WP:NEVENT. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, Medicine, and United States of America. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(author comment) WP:NTEMP Nomination is not based in policy. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEVENT says that an event is notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. This recall fails that guideline, and NEVENT is policy. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States#2018. Egg and other food recalls aren't uncommon, and even though this was a big one, there's no need for a standalone article, especially if only three sentences. No WP:LASTING impact of event. Redirect to Rose Acre Farms may also be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 16:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above: to the 2018 section of the illness page, seems fine. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is not based on policy and there are several notable sources cited that meet WP:SIGCOV and I am sure more can be obtained if The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNBC, and USA Today all covered it. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources are very long, have a lot of fluff about salmonella or other outbreaks, and/or say largely the same thing. And were all published within a day of each other: classic WP:NOTNEWS issue with little depth or lasting coverage. — Reywas92^Talk 04:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plant-based cat food

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

POV-Fork of cat food to promote fringe view of vegetarian cat diets. Article is littered with poor sourcing such as commercial vegan organisations, predatory open access journals, and fringe veterinarian Andrew Knight. Attempts to add relevant information in high quality veterinary sources are stonewalled with specious arguments. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cat food#Vegetarian and vegan Article starts out with a unsuprising definition that plant-based cat food is made of plant materials and deteriorates into fringe sources and the usual type of uninformative 'red wine is good or bad or deadly for you depending on what our editor likes that day'-type studies seen in newspapers forever and veterinarian sources arguing against it. There's no reason for this POVFORK when the main cat food article is already informative enough. Nathannah • 📮 01:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cat food#Vegetarian and vegan, per Nathannah. Stonkaments (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Cat food article already mentions plant-based cat food and we do not need to expand the section with more fringe nonsense. The last thing we need is for people reading the article to get an impression that plant-based cat food is a viable alternative to actual cat food. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 02:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cat food already has a satisfactory section dedicated to the article's subject matter, there is no need for a standalone article. --DannyC55 (Talk ★ Contributions) 07:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC) Keep - Upon seeing subsequent arguments for keeping and taking another look at the article, I change my vote. The current revision respects NPOV and RS. --DannyC55 (Talk ★ Contributions) 01:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [Note, I'm the original creator of this page] This topic deserves it's own page as an article spin-off WP:SPINOFF. Adding all the relevant information that is worthy of Wikipedia to the existing cat food page would make it too large and probably put WP:UNDUE weight on the cat food article.

This is a new page accepted only 2 months ago for which I have not yet gotten to the point of fully splitting the content out of the original cat food page. I request more time to complete this and to leave the page in place right now.

Replying to this specific comment:

The accusation that the article is littered with non-reliable sources has not been backed up on the talk page. E.g. The Guardian is a reliable source.
I did revert part of your changes, then created a talk page topic to discuss it. I suggested ways to improve your and your alt's point, but you did not seem to follow any of that advice. Relevant policies to follow are WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:HONEST.
This article isn't about a view, and cannot be a fringe view in that sense.

Sklabb (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I think this is an honest effort but the opening is far too POV and generally it is not as good as the existing coverage at the redirect target. The coverage at the redirect target is quite detailed and sufficient. I'm not saying that there could never be a valid article about this topic but this isn't it. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, the article deserves to stay. There's too much information for it to be only featured in the 'cat food' article. I'm leaning towards giving the writer some more time to fix/add some sources. Obstgemüse (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cat food#Vegetarian and vegan. I do not believe that a spin-off is necessary, and I can see WP:POV and WP:FRINGE being recurring problems. Not even because of opinionated editors, but due to the fact that most sources (academic and non-academic) are just trying to make a point with unsubstantiated claims. And yes, as Nathannah and DanielRigal stated in their own rationales, the lead does have issues with POV. — Lis^talk 12:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Obstgemüse. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plant-based cat food is obviously notable and needs to be covered. This is not some passing fad. It represents a serious line of R&D at the intersection of veterinary nutrition, ethics, and the rapidly changing food-tech landscape.

The science itself is important. We already see cloned/cell-based proteins and precision-fermentation products being explored, but the “basic science” is being worked out in the realm of plant-based dog food. Those lessons — about supplementation, amino acid balancing, synthetic taurine, etc. — feed directly into what will eventually make plant-based cat food viable. Ignoring this ignores a key branch of active research.:It’s a transitional moment. Cats, unlike dogs, are obligate carnivores. That makes the R&D harder, but it also makes the subject more important, not less. There are studies, experiments, and debates already happening in veterinary and nutritional science, and the commercial sector is moving fast in response.

-Coverage exists. Mainstream media, peer-reviewed articles, and industry analysis all treat this as a real, serious subject. This isn’t WP:FRINGE, it’s an area where science, ethics, and market forces are colliding in real time.

-The ethical dimension matters. Millions of people are seeking ways to feed companion animals without contributing to slaughter. Whether one agrees or not, this is a recognized debate and a research frontier. Wikipedia’s job is to document that discussion, not erase it.

Ecological impact^[1]^[2]^[3]
Toxins / contamination in conventional pet food^[4]
Market / economic relevance^[5]^[6]

So yes, the page belongs here. The subject is notable, the coverage exists, and the R&D is only accelerating. Closing as Keep is the only option that respects what’s actually happening in science and society.MaynardClark (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your 4th source is about raw food, which is unconventional and also subject to scrutiny in veterinary literature. The study has nothing to do with conventional commercial meals, which almost never have bacterial contamination because they are heat treated. I'll also note raw-food is much more popular and a bigger commercial industry than vegetarian/vegan cat food but there is no spin-off article for raw feeding. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Okin, Gregory S. (2017). "Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats". PLOS ONE. 12 (8): e0181301. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1281301O. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181301. PMC 5540283. PMID 28767700.
^ "Pet Food's Surprising Role in Climate Change". Faunalytics. 10 October 2022. Retrieved 31 August 2025.
^ Roos, David (10 November 2022). "How Your Pet's Food Is Contributing to Climate Change". Time. Retrieved 31 August 2025.
^ MacMillan, Amanda (12 January 2018). "Raw Meat is Dangerous for Your Dog, Study Finds". Time. Retrieved 31 August 2025.
^ "Plant-Based Pet Food Sector Sees Strong Growth Globally". Food Ingredients First. 14 February 2022. Retrieved 31 August 2025.
^ "The future of plant-based foods for pets and people". Petfood Industry. 7 April 2021. Retrieved 31 August 2025.

Keep. Notable topic, decently sourced. Needs work, but deletion is not cleanup. Miniapolis 20:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. IMO, a very notable topic. MaynardClark (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This easily meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Generally if an article has problems, it is edited rather than deleted.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smallgoods

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

"Smallgoods" is an Australia and New Zealand synonym for lunch meat, and could be very easily merged into that article; half of this article is a brazen WP:ADVERT anyways, and the topic does not fulfill WP:GNG. 〜 Festucalex • talk 09:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Australia, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australian cuisine#Meat and poultry per WP:ATD. We should probably cover this term in the context of its culture. It doesn't need to be a separate article.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Australian cuisine#Meat and poultry... same reason as 4meter4. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brauerei Kaiserdom

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

No sign of notability, a search returns perhaps one notable article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Germany. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see recurring coverage in Fränkischer Tag, which is the largest regional newspaper in Upper Franconia: https://www.fraenkischertag.de/organisation/brauerei-kaiserdom/ . Perhaps it is due to my browser language settings, but I found a number of other news sites that covered the brewery as well. I made some updates to the article; please let me know if you still think it should be deleted.-Ich (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not noteworthy, and reads like an advert. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smithfield Hog Production Division

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

While Smithfield Foods is undeniably notable but its production unit may not meet the criteria of independent significance and this alone may not establish notability. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, Products, China, Germany, United States of America, California, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia. 🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 05:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I offer no opinion or comment on the article itself at this time (beyond noting there has been a UPE tag on it since 2021), I did want to note that the nominator is presumably referring to Smithfield Foods (rather than the Smithfield disambiguation page) should anyone propose anything in that direction. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Thanks for update.🌟 𝒯𝐻𝐸 𝐵𝒪𝒮𝒮! 23:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a hog, so to speak. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hart, John Fraser (2003). The Changing Scale of American Agriculture. Charlottesville, Virginia: University of Virginia Press. pp. 201–209. ISBN 0-8139-2229-1. Retrieved 2025-09-01 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In 1989 Dennis Harms and Tad Gordon formed Premium Standard Farms (PSF) and started to develop one of the nation's largest hog farms in Mercer, Putnam, and Sullivan counties in north-central Missouri. They were a good team. Harms had worked in the feed business and knew how to raise hogs on a large scale. Gordon had been a securities trader on Wall Street and knew how to raise money on a large scale. Initially Harms and Gordon had hoped to develop a 1,000-sow farrowing farm west of Ames, Iowa. They planned to contract with local farmers to finish their hogs, but local opposition was so strong that they were not able to obtain the permits they needed, so they dropped the lowa project and moved across the state line into northern Missouri, where they were welcomed. Their northernmost hog farm is so close to Iowa that you can smell it there. ... Missouri had a family farm law prohibiting corporate farms, but the state welcomed PSF by exempting Mercer, Putnam, and Sullivan counties. The company received no other special treatment, no government financing, no subsidies, no waived fees, no streamlined approvals. The only public money it has required was spent on roads during the hectic construction phase in the early 1990s. Harms, Gordon, and other senior executives made their homes in the area, and the company made a special effort to be a good neighbor and a good citizen."
2. Smith, Jonathan Vaughan (November 1999). "Premium Standard Farms and the Transformation of Livestock Geography in Northern Missouri". Southeastern Geographer. Vol. 39, no. 2. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 161–171. doi:10.1353/sgo.1999.0009.
  The article notes: "The purpose of this article is to document how issues of remote corporate ownership, corporate welfarism, obtuseness to small-town and family farm-values, and social and environmental degradation all were handled initially in a creative and geographically perceptive manner by one company, Premium Standard Farms (PSF). The economic, social, and environmental consequences that followed ultimately led to a corporate takeover by Continental Grain and a trend back toward the conventional corporate imagery that PSF had initially eschewed."
3. Joplin, Benjamin A. (1997). "Can Townships Really Smell: Coping with the Malodorous Problems of Hog Farms in Rural Missouri: Premium Standard Farms, Inc. v. Lincoln Township of Putnam County". Missouri Environmental Law & Policy Review. Vol. 5, no. 2. University of Missouri School of Law. Archived from the original on 2024-07-31. Retrieved 2025-09-01.
  The article notes: "In Northwestern Missouri, the town of Princeton embraced the boost Premium Standard Farms (PSF) gave the local economy. Less than 150 miles to the east, the Lincoln Township of Putnam County, Missouri (Lincoln) has put up a fierce battle to PSF' s efforts to remain in the area. Lincoln's battle attracted so much national attention that country singer Willie Nelson brought the annual "Farm Aid" concert to the community in 1995. Since then, PSF has challenged in court the method by which Lincoln sought to restrict PSF' s growth in the township."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Premium Standard Farms to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article previously was at Premium Standard Farms before being moved first to Murphy-Brown of Missouri, LLC and then being moved to the current title Smithfield Hog Production Division. I did a brief search for sources and found the above three sources. There are likely even more sources. There is enough information in these sources to show that the predecessor company Premium Standard Farms is notable. Backed by reliable sources, the Wikipedia article says Premium Standard Farms was the second-largest pork producer and the sixth-largest processor in the United States until Smithfield Foods acquired it in 2007. This strongly establishes the predecessor company's notability. There is enough coverage about the predecessor company's history between its founding in 1988 and the merger in 2013 to support a standalone article and to make it undue weight to merge it into Smithfield Foods. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Booth (writer)

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

Notability tag up for very many years. Jw93d59 (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Journalism, Travel and tourism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP that badly fails significant coverage. The sources are by his publisher or otherwise created at his direction. Bearian (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasoning as Bearian, not enough coverage independent of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing in-depth, WP:SIGCOV and independent sources to be kept. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very easy pass of WP:NAUTHOR and probably also WP:GNG. I found reviews of Three Tigers, One Mountain in the LA Review of Books, Taipei Times, Times Literary Supplement, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus and The Heythrop Journal. Reviews of The Meaning of Rice in The Japan Times and The Spectator. Reviews of The Almost Nearly Perfect People: The Truth About the Nordic Miracle in The Observer, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Financial Times, Publishers Weekly and Kirkus. Reviews of Super Sushi Ramen Express in Kirkus, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Japan Times and The Independent. Reviews of Doing without Delia in The Guardian and The Irish Times. Reviews of Sacre Cordon Bleu in The Financial Times, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. Reviews of Just As Well I'm Leaving in Scotland on Sunday, The Guardian, The New Statesman, The Times Literary Supplement and The Daily Telegraph. MCE89 (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above multiple secondary sources. ResonantDis_tortion 18:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the extensive coverage in reliable sources found by MCE89, who has shown that Michael Booth passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minnesotan desserts

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

List is mostly unsourced and few, if any, are unique or exclusive to the state of Minnesota. I have made and eaten some of these in the Canadian Arctic. It violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Lists, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly WP:OR and most entries are not unique to Minnesota. Ajf773 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kahlo157, you made the list at Cuisine of Minnesota#Desserts and pastries – why exactly does this need to be a redundant, duplicate page?? As was said, many of these are eaten across the country, so I encourage you to continue work on that article but clean it up to be only those most emblematic of Minnesota cuisine, ideally with more contextual prose. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page, and am currently working on one for dishes of Minnesota in an effort to conform the cuisine of Minnesota page to be more like the the style of other cuisine pages (Italian cuisine, cuisine of Quebec etc) which have a short list of notable foods followed by a separate page listing all of the foods within the cuisine. I am assuming the food you are referring to that is eaten across the country is the blueberry muffin, which I only included because it is the state muffin. That being said it is eaten throughout the country so I will take it off. Thanks for the feedback. Kahlo157 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A section of desserts in Cuisine of Minnesota with ones that are relevant to the state is fine. So listing bundt cakes, Pie à la Mode, and blueberry muffins which are relevant as they were invented there and one is the state muffin. However, things like marzipan, rice pudding, and dessert bars are eaten world wide and not particularly associated with one state in the US and make it an indiscriminate list. Any other list of desserts by sub-national entity should also probably be deleted. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we call redundant articles "WP:FORKs" for a good reason. Also, several of these desserts were extant in other places long before they were "invented" in Minnesota. For example, marzipan was imported from Germany in the 19th Century, and rice pudding was popular among children in the 1970s as far apart as New York City and Manila. Bearian (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally WP:OR Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Woerner McInnis

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage is primarily local (AL.com, Yellowhammer News, Gulf Coast Media, Business Alabama), and some sources are routine or promotional (corporate profiles, campaign site, Lowe’s Corporate). There is little in-depth, independent secondary coverage to demonstrate enduring encyclopedic notability. Setwardo (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author, sources like AL.com, Yellowhammer, and Business Alabama are not what I would consider local coverage, covering the entire state rather than this simple local area. Press-Register would be something considered local, covering areas from the county over. Lowe's and the personal website are not meant to be sources that would qualify as GNG. Some sources (Alabama News Center, WBRC) only mention the subject in passing. Does not meant NPOL, but that is (at least currently) not a defining point in her career. Overall sources covering her and her activities are enough to meet the general notability guideline. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 24 August 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 August 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Food and drink, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in future elections that haven't happened yet, so she's not notable on that basis, but this article is not doing nearly enough to properly establish her as an already-notable businesswoman. "Local" and "covering the entire state" are not mutually exclusive characteristics — even "statewide" coverage can still be too local to secure notability on "media coverage exists" grounds alone. What matters is the local vs. national significance of the thing you're claiming as her notability claim, and founding a company (especially a company for which we don't have have an article about the company) isn't an instant notability freebie in and of itself. And as for the sourcing, some of the footnotes aren't GNG-worthy coverage at all, while others are GNG-worthy but McInnis herself isn't the primary subject of them, and thus aren't helping to get her over GNG as an individual.
So the way forward here would be to write an article about the company which properly demonstrates that it would meet WP:CORP requirements, not a BLP of its founder — even if it's trying (but not succeeding) to prove preexisting notability in business, this is clearly an article that was intended as publicity for an election campaign. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat absolutely not intended as publicity. I contribute across Alabama election related articles and research candidates. I saw strong coverage of her, prior to her declaration of candidacy and created the page. I stated all my points why I think it passes GNG above, I am only responding to the point that this was "clearly intended" as publicity. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Baglioni

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

The article reads more like a promotional biography than an encyclopedic entry. Much of the content is unsourced, or sourced to highly unreliable or self-published material (e.g. personal websites, YouTube uploads from the subject, a dead local blog). There is little evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that would establish notability under WP:BIO. The inclusion of unsourced claims about childhood experiences, family lineage, and personal relationships further contributes to the article’s promotional tone. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Switzerland, England, California, Nevada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a chef of some local renown---his restaurant got a LA Times review back in the 1980s and received additional WP:MILL coverage of the restaurant's life cycle. (1 2)---but there is no significant coverage of the subject to substantiate WP:GNG. -- BriefEdits (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally promo article, no evidence of notability, clearly fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a lot of coverage in California newspapers in newspapers.com extending from 1968 through 1998; some of which cover television appearances. Additionally google books shows snippets of articles in culinary magazines such as a 1990 article in Epicurean Rendezvous and a 1991 article on him in National Culinary Review. This book published by Wiley (publisher) indicates he was a notable figure in an "Italian renaissance" in cuisine in America of the 20th century. I don't think demonstrating WP:SIGCOV will be difficult.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to the Restaurants & Institutions article, the coverage only mentions the subject and is mostly about the restaurant as it's a piece on the landscape of Italian restaurants in the United States. The same could be said about the Epicurean Rendezvous page (a 90s restaurant guide). The WP refs and JSTOR hits are more or less the same---some occasional name drops, some WP:MILL coverage of the restaurant. Therefore, I don't think the coverage as it stands passes WP:SIGCOV. -- BriefEdits (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purge server cache

Proposed deletions

Templates for Discussion

[1] Okin, Gregory S. (2017). "Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats". PLOS ONE. 12 (8): e0181301. Bibcode:2017PLoSO..1281301O. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181301. PMC 5540283. PMID 28767700.

[2] "Pet Food's Surprising Role in Climate Change". Faunalytics. 10 October 2022. Retrieved 31 August 2025.

[3] Roos, David (10 November 2022). "How Your Pet's Food Is Contributing to Climate Change". Time. Retrieved 31 August 2025.

[4] MacMillan, Amanda (12 January 2018). "Raw Meat is Dangerous for Your Dog, Study Finds". Time. Retrieved 31 August 2025.

[5] "Plant-Based Pet Food Sector Sees Strong Growth Globally". Food Ingredients First. 14 February 2022. Retrieved 31 August 2025.

[6] "The future of plant-based foods for pets and people". Petfood Industry. 7 April 2021. Retrieved 31 August 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]