Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canned 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canned tea[edit]

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

Article brings adds very little of substance about 'canned tea' specifically, and simply takes general information from the tea article and those of specific sub-species.

Propose to delete article and merge the small amount of 'canned tea' content into tea. - blake- 14:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as easily satisfying notability standards. I found and added another source and rewrote the History section by way of example as to how the article can be further improved. More work and more citations are needed to be sure, but the subject is clearly significant enough to merit its own article and should not be merged into the tea article. In particular, the History and Appeal sections can be further expanded with references to the growth of the canned and bottled tea product sector, overtaking sugary soft drinks and other canned or bottled beverages in many parts of the world in the 30+ years since the product was first introduced, which in and of itself is a remarkable and notable achievement. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What he said. Abtract (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Many sources are paywalled snippet views, but here's a few: [1], [2], [3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 2 February 2016 (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.