Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Builder's tea


 * 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 keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Builder's tea

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a dictionary definition, which already exists on Wiktionary (builders' tea). Previous discussion about the status of this article on the talk page centres on notability (the phrase is definitely notable), but it isn't a subject that requires an encyclopedia entry. There is little article content beyond the definition, and a comment that builders find tea breaks "soothing and stimulating". User:GKFXtalk 15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Cuisine based items are generally notable for the Encyclopedia, especially ones such as this which has a lot of sourced references. Saying "it isn't a subject that requires an encyclopedia entry." is not a valid reason for deletion, neither is "little article content beyond the definition", as stubs (which this is far more than) are valid, as are definitions of the subject (the whole point of the encyclopedia, no?) and of course, even if you do believe that the page is lacking material, that still isn't a reason to delete don't delete pages because the content is lacking, but because subjects aren't notable, and this subject appears to be notable. Egaoblai (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just wonder how much there is to say about builder's tea that can't be said at tea. After all, the phrase really does just mean strong black tea. So I'm concerned that there isn't going to be any more article content to write. The presence of so many references establishes notability, but as stated in the nomination that's not what I'm disputing. User:GKFXtalk 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep This isn't a topic that requires deletion as it is notable and there are obvious alternatives which we prefer per WP:PRESERVE. Consider also the numerous other varieties of tea and coffee which have their own pages : Flat white;  Earl Grey; Ipoh white coffee; butter tea; and many more.  Andrew D. (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It needs an Origin or History section like those mentioned above have. Looking at ngrams and trends seems to indicate it is a new term. Although, maybe it comes from The Bonnet Builder's Tea Party (just joking).


 * Keep. It's notable and deserves its own entry as per comment above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.scaringi (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concur with Egaoblai. Finnegas (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2018 (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.