Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's Famous Teas


 * 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   merge to List of Chinese teas. The policy-based arguments are basically centering around issues of original research and giving undue weight to specific sources. Consensus at the target is obviously free to determine how much of the content, if any, is appropriate for inclusion there or elsewhere. slakr \ talk / 04:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

China's Famous Teas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic doesn't actually seem to be an actual specifically notable list, it's just 3 different examples of lists of top teas. The sites from which the lists are taken aren't even using a particular metric or anything, but are just "ranked by the frequency they appear on 20 lists from various references". Yaksar (let's chat) 20:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This set off a dim alarm bell in that I saw the article ages ago and thought that something needed to be done with it - particularly given the peacock term in the title. The Chinese term "中国十大名茶" is a widely known phenomenon so although there are no notability issues there are still problems. The first one is that the closest English translation, i.e. "China's ten famous teas" is naff. The second problem is that opinions vary as to which ten teas are the top ones. My suggestion is that we move the topic to "List of the top ten Chinese teas" and decide on the criteria for inclusion on the talk page of the new article. Tea is a fundamental in Chinese culture and the people's obsession with fame and lists means that we would be mistaken to dismiss the topic out of hand. Philg88 ♦talk 05:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you say the concept is more along the lines of something like, say, the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, or maybe like College and university rankings, where we could find some authoritative sources? Because I'm not totally sure I understand your suggestion to move the page to "List of the top ten Chinese teas", which would still suffer from the same issues. We do have plenty of articles on notable top lists, such as FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, but these aren't really of the same type as here, where it's simply "favorite teas from certain blogs or polls".--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is that this is a topic unique to China due to the deep infusion of tea into the culture (pun intended). It can't really be compared to the Seven wonders (not as important) or other "lists". That said, list format would seem the most appropriate even if it's a "hidden" list like "China's top ten teas", say. Philg88 ♦talk 05:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This topic is seemingly based of opinion pieces of what's the best Chinese teas (in the form of a subjective "top ten list") rather than an actual concept. The nature of the topic is subjective and not encyclopedic; there's no notability in these rankings. --Cold Season (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Selective merge to History of tea in China.  According The Story of Tea: A Cultural History and Drinking Guide, China's Famous Teas derived from Imperial Tribute Teas and the book has a list of such tribute teas. It seems that the term is verifiable, but I've been unable to find multiple in depth RS needed for notability. The term seems worth a mention in History of tea in China, but other than this book, I don't seen any canonical list. Presumably, Chinese historians have evidence of which teas were Imperial Tribute teas; this might form the basis for a list. --Mark viking (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The key here is that the topic (although perhaps not in its current wording) is notable based on significant coverage in independendent reliable sources. However, as Chinese Wikipedia says, there are multiple interpretations of what the ten top teas are. The China Internet Information Center's Top 10 Chinese teas is arguably the official list as it is published by an offshot of Xinhua, the state news agency. Then there is the Agriculture Department of China 1959 list (already in the article), a list by Hong Kong's Hong Kong's Wen Wei Po daily published on January 18, 2002 and the Fox News World's top 10 teas, although that includes one Indian tea. Philg88 ♦talk 05:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a need for the the topic to be treated as a concept in reliable secondary sources and not to just have a variety of arbitrary top ten lists as opinion pieces in news blogs or other media, which does not even treat these listings as a concept and it would be WP:OR to do so here. --Cold Season (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the point, Xinhua, Wen Wei Po and Fox News are reliable secondary sources. Philg88 ♦talk 14:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment consist more than what you directly replied to; none of those establishes the notability of or even mention this article's subject as concept, that is, China's Famous Teas. It would be a WP:SYN (of cited sources with an own conclusion) to present it a such. --Cold Season (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned twice above, it's the translated title that's the problem not the concept behind it. Multiple reliable sources discuss China's top/famous ten teas, which make the topic notable and in no way represents WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Philg88 ♦talk 17:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The multiple sources give an opinion about what they think are the best teas of China (except the Fox News one, which is irrelevant here, since they include non-Chinese teas), and they do not discuss or even indicate their listings as a concept (whatever it may be purportedly "translated" as). There's also no inherent notability of topics like "Top ten teas of China according to China Internet Information Center," which is the actual topic that can be attributed the source China Internet Information Center... etcetera with the other sources (and anything else is WP:OR, since it's subjective what the top teas are). They certainly do not discuss a concept. --Cold Season (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment from nominator - I don't in theory have any issue with a merge of this topic to the Chinese Tea article. However, given that A) we all seem to agree that the current title is not fitting and B) there's not really any usable and verifiable content in this article that isn't just opinion of blogs and specific sources, I'm not sure that a merge or even redirect would be helpful or wanted. It seems easier and far more logical to add the actual information into the article and create redirects instead from the suggested better names.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a redirect should not be kept, since there's no such term. --Cold Season (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - These are a real notion within the country. It is correct to prefer cited lists, however this article is both useful and partly cited at present. I am strongly against deletion. There is far too much good content getting deleted recently. Expand and improve, don't delete. These discussions just sap everyone's time. prat (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's cited to things that are completely unrelated to the purported concept of "China's Famous Teas", so it's WP:OR and a very loose (read: wrong) use of references. --Cold Season (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's not really a list article, so much as a case of "here's three different lists that certain websites think are the most famous teas.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ♦talk 20:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Chinese teas which already has the sub-section of China famous tea. STSC (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In the interest of consensus, a merge to List of Chinese teas is also a reasonable alternative that I would support. At least that section notes the variability of the list. --Mark viking (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a wholly uncited section. --Cold Season (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article uses two surveys of 10 and 20 lists and an official list to demonstrate rankings; the way it presents a notable subject in ranking lists is not a valid reason for deletion, and the process of collecting data in these lists is certainly not "OR" . The article is still a stub; if more varieties of top ten list of Chinese tea were added then the article would be more interesting and informative. STSC (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * None of those lists have notability, lacking in significant coverage. No one stated here that the methodology of compiling those lists meets WP:OR, since wikipedia editors are not the ones who compiled it. It is however OR to present those lists as this purported concept "China's Famous Teas" while the references does not. --Cold Season (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines only apply to the topic (China's Famous Teas), not to the content (the ranking lists). Those lists are based on RS which present the lists as "Top Ten Teas of China", "The 10 Most famous Chinese teas", and "China top ten famous teas" ( 中国十大名茶), so it's not OR at all. STSC (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the topic is indeed OR. The rest is a repeat of what you said, which no one has stated in opposition against; just to clarify, to what statement were you referring to when you put quotation marks to "OR" above? --Cold Season (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd strike out any misunderstanding in my comments. Could you please point out which Wiki policies that deal with your concern about the topic (not the content) being "OR"? STSC (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article combines several references to suggest a new statement not supported by any of the sources (WP:SYN), that is, that there's some sort-of symbolic list of the top Chinese teas. If the article would be merged, this aspect needs to be culled out to reflect the references. --Cold Season (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Chinese teas per STSC. ‑Scottywong | spill the beans _ 23:15, 3 October 2014 (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.