Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Hong (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Tea Hong
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

First AfD ended in no consensus, mainly due to a lack of participants. Nothing has changed though; if one removes the sources which are not about Tea Hong, and the souces which are not reliable or independent, one ends with virtually nothing here. This company just hasn't received the necessary attention to have an article here. Fram (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Can't find any reliable sources supporting WP:GNG Delete Snake Oil Wench (talk) 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 *  Comment: To the nominator: "If one removes the sources which are not about Tea Hong" ... please specificy which? Also why didn't you just remove those sources? it will make our voting jobs easier. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is usually frowned upon to AfD an article and at the same time remove sources from the article, as it looks like gaming the system. Anyway, Tea Hong was established in 2012, all sources from before are about other companies and don't mention Tea Hong. E.g. "Heiss, Mary Lou (2007). The Story of Tea: A Cultural History and Drinking Guide." (= source 4), and the current sources 6 to 11. So that leaves you with source 1, 2, 3, 5 and 12. 1 is the "about us" of the company, so no notability there. Source 2 is a Wordpress blog. And the last source, Tea Guardian, is a site from the owner of Tea Hong. So that leaves you with potentially two sources, source three and five. Source 5 presents Leo Kwan as one of the known tea makers, but hardly deals with Tea Hong (it mentions it, but it isn't the focus of the article at all). I have no access to source 3. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is far more an article about the various successive ventures involving Leo Kwan than an article about Tea Hong. I am not seeing the information or the coverage which can demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. In-depth coverage, by a reliable source, is not available. Ifnord (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails to meet the notability guidelines. Riteboke (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2021 (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.