Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gong Cha

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. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gong Cha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propaganda and blatant promotion about company, its working conditions, its merchandise, etc. Due to this, plus the lack of referencing for much of the article, it seems an obvious delete, but company might pass notability, hence bringing to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
t • c » 21:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,

ey 00:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Stubify Filled with unsourced material, but the company is probably notable. LK (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is aimed at promoting the company, although it includes examples of the company, it is just helping to explain the ideas, therefore, the page is fine. However, someone may think that the words used in the page are subjective. If the words can have some changes, the page could be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A001116 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Stubified as suggested by LK. After axing the awful section "Characteristics of Gong Cha in Hong Kong", and giving it a copyedit, it's actually not that bad. The section on "cloudy agent" (i.e. plasticisers) was already reasonably well-sourced to major Hong Kong newspapers like Oriental Daily News and Ming Pao, and there was another article in The Sun from before that incident reviewing their drinks selection. quant18 (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the now cut-down version. Dengero (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.