Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Te Mas Mas (T++) The Bubble Tea Company


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Te Mas Mas (T++) The Bubble Tea Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of WP:GNG. WP:SPA making solely promotional pages. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Deletea non-notable small business in Costa Rica, created by an new PR-only account that I daresay may turn out to be a sockpuppet of an already blocked PR account . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, the common link here is Sergio Masís-Obando. The SPA is spamming for him or is him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, none of the above. The common link is Sergio Masís-Obando because that is how I learned about the ventures. I am writing up about other Boston Startups that have made a footprint. It just so happens my first two articles were the easiest to write. Andresramon (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon
 * Wikipedia is not a platform or webhost for articles about "other Boston Startups"... unless they're notable. And most start ups likely aren't. So my concerns remain. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I stated at the other Afd, I've looked at the other two articles you've created and they appear to be fine. You began editing here with what seemed to me to be a highly suspect pattern of article creation, but I apologize if I've misjudged you. Still, WP:ORG is the standard by which to measure any planned new articles on "Boston area startups" or what have you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to this nomination particularly, I'd like to add that this article is about the first bubble tea shop in Costa Rica -- that is notable. To disregard the entry of one of the most famous beverages of all time into a developing country because there aren't 'notable' sources such as the NYT or Aljazeera is a bit unfair, wouldn't you agree? The nominator, Zackmann08 and yourself may think of this as less notable because the sources are foreign to you (I can only assume, I may be wrong). The sources are mostly in Spanish, and are from another, foreign country. I must add that Costa Rica doesn't boast a plethora of online news sites. The majority of the news in Costa Rica is indeed printed or screened on Television, not archived online. This doesn't mean T++ is not noteworthy. T++ did in fact appear multiple times on national television--this is not necessarily archived either (at least, I haven't been able to find it, yet). Remember, Costa Rica is a small country (4.872 million in 2013). To disregard this article on facts related to a developing country due to your perceptions on western standards would be, in my opinion, mistaken, and would run counter to Wikipedia's vocation of reaching a universal audience. Andresramon (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon
 * I can assure that as an editor I take systemic bias very seriously and have done a lot (I would say) over my years here to address it. More than you will ever know. That said, we are not going to give the first bubble tea shop in Costa Rica a free pass purely on that basis. It still needs to meet WP:ORG and for that matter, WP:AUD, too. For countless local restaurants and cafes garner purely local coverage and even that is not enough. This was a very curious choice by you for a first article -- and I daresay if you had taken some time to understand our policies, you would not have created it. And in case there's any confusion here, Spanish-language sources are perfectly acceptable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to write about things that I find interesting. Don't you find the first bubble tea shop in Costa Rica interesting? And even more interesting that the venture space in a foreign country starts to intersect with that of the US? It informs on globalization and the beauty of the new world. And I'm glad that Spanish-language sources are acceptable. To that end, I have to add that in the article I do not cite '"local coverage", as a matter of fact, I cite the two most prominent news sources in Costa Rica. The Tico Times has been around since the 1950s, and La Nación (Costa Rica) has been around since the 40s -- these although, national news sources, are internationally renown. I would reckon that's notable. In fact, according to the link you provided on Audience the guidelines say, "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The guidelines ask for at least one, the article in question provides at least 2.
 * I'd also like to point to Teabean -- it's in the same industry as T++ except fame at the city and country level came for different reasons. Andresramon (talk) 02:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * References one and two are very good. The rest are not of much help, though. And you can't add references to Facebook or Tripadviser as they are user-generated (did you read WP:RS like I suggested?) With two good references it just falls short, for me. Others may feel differently. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete since WP:NOT policy in fact applies, and the "first" claims are equally unconvincing if policy suggests deletion instead, and this is in fact simply amounting to a business listing, not an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let’s go through this, because above all, WIKI states that to measure an article for deletion, it must be evaluated based on logical arguments. The article was first nominated per WT:GNG and WT:SPA. (1) WT:SPA was crossed off because this was wrong and this aspect has now been logically removed as an argument against this article. (2) This article was nominated because the nominator believes WT:GNG to not be met. If we carefully read through the criteria/parameters within WT:GNG, it contains that there must be Significant Coverage –there are two national and internationally renowned articles which focus solely on the subject of the article. This meets wiki’s Significant Coverage because the sources ” [address] the topic directly and in detail”. Because of the nature of these sources they also meet wiki’s Reliable parameter and they are of secondary sources –good measure of notability (according to WT:GNG) and thus meet the Sources parameter, as well. In fact, this also meets the Independent of the subject parameter. I would deem that all opposition from these two initial arguments 'WT:GNG and WT:SPA has been logically countered. Next, (3) It was then brought by Shawn in Montreal that this article needs to meet WT:ORG and WT:AUD. Let’s start with WT:ORG. WIKI states A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The subject meets significant coverage in secondary sources as aforementioned. The sources also meet the reliable parameter and the independent of the subject. We also realize quickly that this also meets Depth of Coverage because of the two main sources, the subject is the only focus of the articles. It seems the evidence stacks well against the proposed reasons for deletion. Next, WT:AUD was brought up as an argument against the article. As I have previously countered, the Audience parameter is also met. The guidelines say that, "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The article provides two national and internationally renowned sources. This meets the guideline of at least one and in fact provides two., your criteria is three. But, that seems to be a number coming from you. If we are to follow Wiki’s guidelines (especially those brought here, against the article in question), and maintain a completely logical and objective path---I have to seriously question why the same arguments, which have all been countered, are being used against the article. (5) , you bring up WT:NOT, which I have already logically countered. On this end, there is nothing new. You then say that this is purely a business listing--- which is not true. A business listing if we go to Business directory, we find that a business listing, "may include the business name, addresses, telephone numbers, location, type of service or products the business provides, number of employees, the service region and any professional associations." Here, we read that a business listing contains simply facts. The article in question contains encyclopedic content that therefore does not make it a listing. In fact, I believe I had written some additional information which I withdrew because it felt like it may be misconstrued as "promotional". Right now, it feels that moving towards deletion is easier than thinking of an alternative for a clearly interesting, encyclopedic article. To this end, I encourage the more experienced users to propose an alternative to deletion. I believe this should be kept. Let’s remember that on the AfD page, it states, "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. "  I have met all arguments logically on measurable evidence that stem from Wiki’s own policy guidelines.  Andresramon (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon
 * You've misunderstood me: my preference for three is a reflection of WP:GNG, which calls for "multiple" reliable sources, of any kind. And right now there are only two WP:RS for this failed Costa Rican tea shop, and I for one remain convinced that it is non-notable from the point of view of an enclyopedia. Secondly, please don't bold comments for emphasis, per WP:AFDFORMAT. If you like, use italics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also there is nothing "countering" to WP:NOT because it's actually policy and one of the importsnt policies here, while BASIC and GNG are not policies so they are not exchangeable. SwisterTwister   talk  22:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Sorry for bolding parts of text (I was trying to make it easier to read for you all and myself). But, again, "multiple" doesn't necessarily mean more than two. As I quoted already, the guidelines ask for at least one. The article provides two. I cannot change your mind, as it seems you are determined. And I still fail to see how this is not encyclopedic. I've already shown that the article meets the guidelines for notability for all its parameters. At this juncture it seems like it is only opinion that is carrying your argument.  You've only cited multiple from the guidelines as an argument.  When I wrote "counter" I meant to say that I "countered" your argument. To summarize, I used the exact same article, WT:NOT, you summoned, against your own argument. That is what I meant by "countered". --I've used sound logic, the wikipedia policy, and guidelines --verbatim-- to demonstrate that this article should be kept. And yet, you continue as if my point by point deconstruction of your arguments was never made. I'd like to note for the readers that the nominator has nominated all of my pages for deletion. It is possible that this article will end up deleted--not because it doesn't meet wiki's parameters--but because I happened to choose to make pages on certain related subjects, which led to the suspicion of my intentions, and an opposition stacked against me even when I've used logic to defend the article incredibly well. Are there no other alternative solutions to this page, that I do believe meets notability? If this page doesn't meet notability, I'll resurface this page: Teabean --- how does this meet notability? The T++ article has way more encyclopedic content than Teabean. If the question is that I must expand the article to enhance it, then let that be said. Otherwise, I'm unconvinced why this should be deleted. Andresramon (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Andresramon
 * I'm not going to debate this at length. Multiple does mean more than two for me. As for Teabean I couldn't care less. See WP:OTHERCRAP. And if Teabean bothers you so much, take it to deletion. Goodbye and good luck, my efforts to assist you have reached an end, I'm sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies WT:GNG and would enhance the encyclopedic content for Costa Rica related articles. As a monitor for Costa Rican articles, articles like these are lacking. Dweebing (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Dweebing — Dweebing (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - per nom. I don't see notability here. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no fixed number for the RSs that are needed--it depends on what they are and what they say. In this case, the two articles are just press releases, and any number of such don't justify an article. And the contents of this article is just PR also: look atthe number of unsourced adjectives of excellence.  DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 13:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - admirably earnest defence but topic is still far from notable, the minor sources listed notwithstanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 12 December 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.