Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wong Lo Kat


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Wong Lo Kat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non notable beverage Wuh  Wuz  Dat  15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Highly notable Chinese drink.  Discussed in lots of books. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Week Keep | Need Modification, I'm a Chinese from Malaysia, Wong Lo Kat is actually a common name of herbal tea formulated by the founder. Almost all Chinese Traditional Medical Hall, or knows as Chinese Traditional Herbs Pharmacy sell the Wong Lo Kat herbal tea. Wong Lo Kat is much more a herbal tea's formula named after the founder. And few years back being commercialized by a giant can drinks company at China as Red Can Wong Lo Kat as what the photo posted at the page now. The page should keep only if the information given is more talking about the history and the ingredients of the tea instead of the company who canned it. Like computer software, open source software with modification can be commercialized but the credit is always to the Open Source Founded and not the one who just modify it. 219.95.123.254 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Even a cursory search demonstrates this is a notable beverage.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (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.