Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Bond Taj Mahal


 * 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 redirect to Brooke Bond.  MBisanz  talk 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Brooke Bond Taj Mahal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Frankly I questioned this article since I reviewed it at NPP and have been watching it since, the author has frequently spoken to me and has cited improvements but I'm simply questionable whether this is solidly independently notable. At best, this apparently is owned by Brooke Bond so it could be somehow salvaged by merging there. SwisterTwister  talk  06:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well.. I'm not sure this one is entirely obvious. On the one hand, the page is clearly rubbish and there is little that gives much hope that it'll be improved into something useful.  But on the other hand, other branded products are well established on wikipedia.  So I think we're just down to looking for reliable sources - which might be a bit tricky. But, I think it is possible - like these    etc.  I think it is a notable tea brand in India.  But how one writes a wikipedia page on that.. I couldn't say. JMWt (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This article shoild not be deleted because....

My friend SwisterTwister said that I have to add the sources from newspapers and magazines to improve the article. So I have edited the sources from magazines and newspapers. So please do not delete this article. I'll also try to improve it more. Thank You --sattu 04:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)\

My friend SwisterTwister is confused that this is notable or not. This is notable as whole India knows about this tea so we can say that this is notable. Isn't it ? Thank You

This article is not merging in Brooke Bond as the company Brooke Bond is also owned by Hindustan Unilever. It is describing the product (tea). It is not merging in Brooke Bond as this company has many teas and their head is Hindustan Unilever which has different products like purifiers, teas, soaps and other sanitary, etc. So I can say that this article is not merging in Brooke Bond but we can say that this article is related to it. You can ask any Indian about the same and he/she will reply you so. If you are confused then you can see Brands owned by Hindustan Unilever Limited and wikipedia/Hul Thank You sattu 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthakniar (talk • contribs) Thank You sattu 05:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Sarthakniar/talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Sarthakniar, repeating yourself again and again does not help convince anyone and is very unhelpful in terms of convincing people. The suggestion above is that this get moved into a "list of brands" section at Brooke Bond so we need more evidence that is actually significant discussion of the brands other than the fact that it is from an important company. This is about the tea not the company, which is a separate article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarthakniar (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

oksattu 05:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as essentially promotion of http://www.tajmahaltea.com/ It is all company primary source material, with a large number of sources added that do not speak to Wikipedia-notability.  A Smerge to Brooke Bond may be justified, but I think WP:TNT applies.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! This article should not be merged in the article Brooke Bond as their is no information on the products of Brooke Bond In the article Brooke Bond. So if we add information on tea in that article then it seems very odd. In my opinion it is little bit damaging the encyclopedia if we do the same. This product is notable as notable means that someone or something that is important or interesting and we all know that this is important. but we can't say that this is independently notable as it is a product of Brooke Bond. This is not independently notable but then also this should not be merged in the article Brooke Bond as if it is merged than it can be harmful for encyclopedia. This article should not be deleted as the products owned by any company should have their own article for more information. There are also many articles in Wikipedia which are owned by a company like XUV 5OO. It is also a product of Mahindra and so it is also not independently notable then why this question is not put at that product. My conclusion is that in my opinion this article should not be deleted. If you agree with my statement then please comment here and also on my my talk page if you can. Now it is your choice that you want to delete the article or not but please do not destroy the encyclopedia as our main aim is to improve the encyclpedia. Sarthakniar/talk

Thank You sattu 06:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Promo and almost entirely primary sourced content. Not notable in it's own right separate from Brooke Bond. Any truly encyclopedic and notable content here can be merged or recreated there. Chrisw80 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Brooke Bond - not finding significant coverage for this product to suggest it meets notability. Although it's long standing consensus that products are generally kept, I don't feel this could be one of the case. A mere mention on Brooke Bond would do — UY Scuti Talk  19:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering this is connected to that company, I also originally considered this and still support. SwisterTwister   talk  19:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Brooke Bond. This particular brand of tea does not appear to meet WP:GNG, per source searches. North America1000 23:50, 7 April 2016 (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.