Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maoz Vegetarian


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It appears that while there are sources, they do not meet our guidelines for establishing encyclopedic notability. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Maoz Vegetarian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence for notability--routine notices only  DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUD. See sources in the article for starters, and additional source searches further demonstrate notability. Also, don't forget the Haaretz source in the Further reading section, which may be missed. North America1000 02:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are sufficient sources in the article to demonstrate notability, and there are other sources out there. The apparent rising tide of sentiment that "businesses are automatically non-notable" is concerning. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not my sentiment. My own sentiment, rather, is that all large businesses for which there is something to say other than directory information are likely to be notable. Where there is only directory information, the subject fails NOT DIRECTORY, a basic policy, that is the fundamental basis of the notability guideline, so detailed consideration of the sources that give the directory information is irrelevant.  For small businesses, they are very likely to be promotional, which fails another part of th fundamental policy NOT ADVOCACY,so again detailed consideration of sources are irrelevant. This particular article is a medium size business with only directory information,  and should be deleted on that basis.  DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete; nothing but routine stuff like directories and soft news coverage, which is even less reliable than "news news" (if you let me make up a phrase); DGG describes the situation well. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the coverage is routine and / or WP:SPIP; a wholly unremarkable, minor chain. If promotionalism is removed ("...with a vision of "spreading the vegetarian lifestyle worldwide...!"), there won't be anything left. Wikipedia is not a directory of nn businesses, nor is it an opportunity to place franchisee ads. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.