Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogi 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. MuZemike 23:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yogi Tea

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable product. Some news sources exist, but they appear to be passing mentions, press-releases or paid placements. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are news articles on GNews - including Boston Globe, The Register Guard, and others.  Some are brief mentions, some may be longer articles (now pay, unfortunately.)  Still seems to meet the notability criteria IMHO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet the sourcing requirements of WP:CORP. The two sources available are pretty thin or semi-unavailable. The Globe article is locked behind a firewall and can't be used for verification, and the Register-Guard article is mostly about the growth of the parent company, not the brand of tea. There simply are not enough comprehensive sources to get decent verification of facts about the subject. Steven Walling 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  —Katr67 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * comment by nom being locked behind a paywall isn't a barrier to being used for a reference. My objection to using such things as a reference is that they are third party vanity.  Common sense says that vanity pieces don't establish notability.  If we accept that as notable then everything with 15 minutes of fame lives forever on Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * It's not a barrier to it being used as a reference, the policy states that's it's "by no means necessary". But when it's one of the only two available sources verifying notability of a subject, I think it's editorially fair to require something that we can all access as part of the fact checking process. Otherwise it's pretty much worthless. Steven Walling 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Excerpts from Boston Globe Article for review. The entire article is 251 words long, and is a product review.  I won't post the whole thing in the interest of copyright, but here's a small sample for the group to consider: "Yogi Tea." Mar. 6, 1997.  The Boston Globe
 * HIT OF THE WEEK: This energizing though caffeine-free beverage isn't really tea...it's an exotic blend of spices and herbs, packaged loose."
 * "This may sound time-consuming....The process is delightful, the results sublime."
 * "Our favorite is Original Yogi Tea, available at health food stores and natural supermarkets. Its ingredients are based on the teachings of Ayurveda, Indian holistic medicine."
 * "As Yogi Tea simmers on the stove, it emits a luscious fragrance that lingers for hours, part of why we love preparing it."
 * "Yogi Bhajan's Yogi Tea, 3 oz., about $3.50 in natural food stores, $1.99 at Trader Joe's. Box of 16 teabags, $2.99, at Cambridge Natural Foods and Bread & Circus." Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that there are articles mentioning it in the LA Times, also behind a paywall, as well as other newspapers. I'm generally hesitant to use any one of these as proof - since it is difficult to know if the article merely mentioned the tea or was about it - but it did receive publicity in two national newspapers (the Globe and the LA Times.)  I'm not counting anything appearing in a trade mag.  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Keep There are news articles on this topic. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found above, and three more here. While it has currently several issues, it could be fixed. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I thought this was notable, but the press mentions don't appear to be substantive so notability can't be proven by current Wikipedia standards. This content would be better redirected to the as-yet-unwritten article about the parent company Golden Temple, LLC (or whatever it should be named). The company is definitely notable with tons of reliable third-party news articles. Katr67 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2009 (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.