Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Hong


 * 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Tea Hong

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable, independent sources about Tea Hong. The sources are either from the owner of the company or directly from the company, or are about Leo Kwan but not about Tea Hong. Searching for results gives nothing from Google News and very little from Google in general (searching for "tea hong" gives results were the words "tea" and "Hong Kong" follow each other, but nothing usable for this specific tea trader). Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Please inspect the newly added reference for the entity Tea Hong. One is from the STIR Magazine, a trade magazine for tea and coffee professions. The article was written by Jane Pettigrew, one of the most prolific tea writers and educators. The other is from TeaChat, one of the oldest chat rooms on tea and operated by Adagio Teas. I hope these references can satisfy Wikipedia's guideline for reliable reference sources. If these are not enough, we shall seek more for the purpose. We just do not wish to overwhelm the reference list, hoping to make the entry as concise as possible. Thank you for your attention. TheFarmer (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * One is a forum: comments by random people on fora, no matter how old or well established, are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia. The other is a comment by Leo Kwan, not a source paying attention to Tea Hong. What we need are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to Tea Hong, not just mentioning it. Fram (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

TheFarmer (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC) While I can agree that in a public chat room, comments by random people do not carry significant weight, there is a strong argument in Ms Pettigrew's article where she formulated most of the content around the interview with Leo. In fact, his name is mentioned a few times more than any other interviewees. That illustrates the heavy reliance of Ms Pettigrew on Leo Kwan, whose capacity is a representative of Tea Hong in the article. Nevertheless, I have added another piece of writing totally on Tea Hong alone in the reference. It is by a tea reviewer who has written quite a number of our products but not commissioned or sponsored by us. He writes about many other teas as well, but has dedicated full piece of writing only to a few notable teashops. Hope that satisfies your requirements. TheFarmer (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Since my previous edition to the article and addition on this comments have not been addressed for a few days, I guess it is time for you to consider removing the nomination for deletion.
 * I actually didn't reply because I hoped other people would get involved here, not because the sources you added were sufficient. The first one is a wordpress page, basically a blog anyone can create, and which seems to be a very obscure one at that. As for the Pettigrew article, it uses Kwan as an expert, yes, but it has no information on Tea Hong (just mentions it), which is the topic up for deletion. So no, I see no reason to remove this deletion nomination at all. Fram (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC) TheFarmer (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Thank you for relisting for discussion. Everyone seriously in tea are very busy this time of the year. Will come back to this in a couple of weeks.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable. --17jiangz1 (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2020 (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.