Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea-sucking

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. FCYTravis 6 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

tea-sucking née Tea Sucking
It's hard to believe this is anything other than a neologism Bovlb 2005-07-01 06:38:37 (UTC) *Delete. Unencyclopaedic, subtrivial teacruft. &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 1 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, non-notable, non-encyclopedic, teacruft, vanity, joke, nonsense, and all that.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 1 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
 * Weak keep after the rewrite. Should be renamed to Tea sucking though.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 2 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
 * Delete: what JIP said, plus the photo isn't much cop either. -- Hoary July 1, 2005 06:58 (UTC) PS What Uncle G writes below is most interesting; if he or somebody else would care to rewrite the article accordingly, I might well change my vote. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 01:34 (UTC) This is now a first-rate article on what is clearly a most noteworthy subject, so keep, of course. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 07:16 (UTC)
 * Keep Firstly, I'd like to point out that this article doesn't qualify for Speedy Deletion. Arguments for Keep: It's not neologism, it is something that people actually do. It may not be relevant to your life, but it is to many others. It has the potential to be encyclopaedic (though not if deleted). It's not vanity, because it's not about a person, nor was it created by a Tea Sucker. It's not a joke, nor nonsense. This is something that many people actually do, and this is a good place to collect information about why and how. I accept a more flattering photo could help, but I think the current one does well to convey the emotions involved when sucking on a tea bag. -- grlea Strong Delete Someone has completely rewritten the original article to now be about Tim Tam Slams, and variants thereof. Firstly, Tim Tam Slams are most commonly performed with coffee, not tea, and I've never heard of them being done with tea, and a quick survey of my office shows no one else has heard of people using tea either. Secondly, I've never heard Tim Tam Slamming called Tea Sucking before, though the term Tim Tam Slam is well-known to me and in the circles I move in. If the new content does have a place on Wikipedia (as, strangely, a lot of people seem to think it does), it should probably be under Tim Tam Slam. Tea Sucking is something altogether different. I would prefer if the original content were restored and the VfD page reset to monitor the desire for a page that really is about Tea Sucking (as opposed to Tim Tam Slams), but this probably isn't going to happen. My recommendation is that the current content be moved to Tim Tam Slam and we forget the whole sorry Tea Sucking saga. I think I'm done with trying to contribute to wikipedia. Might go start a blog instead. grlea 5 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I think the guy in the picture is totally fakin' it. A lot of them do, ya know.  Sure, they have the string and the little tag hanging out of their mouth, but it isn't connected to a tea bag at all.  It probably isn't connected to anything.  I think the article should cover this problem, because it's ruined a few perfectly good marriages and carpets. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  July 1, 2005 15:20 (UTC)
 * Since no-one has heretofore mentioned speedy deletion, or tagged the article as such, I am mystified by this comment by the author of the article. Uncle G 2005-07-01 16:14:00 (UTC)
 * I brought up speedy deletion because of the speed at which the article was marked for deletion. Within less than an hour of its creation it had a VfD page with three Delete votes. grlea 4 July 2005 23:17 (UTC) (Edited: grlea 5 July 2005 07:53 (UTC))
 * Comment: Speedy deletion is immediate deletion without listing on VfD. Obviously, this is not speedy deletion, or else this vote page would not exist. The personal attacks have been removed from your comment.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 5 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you were offended. They were only jokes, not attacks. grlea 5 July 2005 07:53 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a lot of us that spend out time watching New Pages and listing bad articles for deletion. I'm sorry if you take it personally, but if you've ever read VfD you would see that we have a veritable torrent of crap that we have to delete here. &mdash; Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)
 * Delete, but also Bjaodn, especially the image Keep after rewrite; never heard about it, though Lectonar 1 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)
 * Comment yeah, see, I think of the sexual slang phrase Tea baggin'. I hope your familiar with that word. If it is kept then maybe a disclaimer saying that the words are not related should be used... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 11:10 (UTC) Wow, I just got through re-reading grlea's eloquent argument and I have this to say: This is the kind of user that WP needs more of. Someone who can understand the fact that just because a topic isn't encyclopedic to some doesn't mean that it isn't encyclopedic to all! This kind of person can fulfill one of WP's goals: to not be ethnocentric! I change my vote to keep
 * Delete per the above. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; July 1, 2005 14:03 (UTC) Okay, not per the above. But I'm afraid that this is little more than a circular definition (tea sucking is the sucking of tea, yes?) so delete as unencyclopedic. I suppose a redirect to tea would be reasonable. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  July 1, 2005 17:03 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google revealed very few hits that actually referred to this practice.  I'm sure some people do it, but, so?  When I was a kid, I ate Quik out of the container, but I don't think Quik eating should be in Wikipedia.  Dcarrano 1 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)  After rewrite, merge per Tysto; great suggestion.  Dcarrano July 3, 2005 17:21 (UTC)
 * If WP has the room to encompass every single high school, rock song, antique shop in the world then it has the capacity to encompass all known human practices. Google should not be a final answer! Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 15:08 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't want to become Google now would we? Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 15:10 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't cite sources, its proponents (the author and 1 other) have proferred no sources, and there are no sources to be found documenting the practice of teabag sucking as is described in the article; all of which make this article original research. However, there are sources to cite for tea sucking, a practice different to what is was described in this article.  People have written (semi-serious) analyses of this.  See this report of the Tim-Tam Slam, this one, this report on sucking tea through various other types of biscuit and this discussion of tea sucking using Tim-Tams.  Delete unless the article is completely rewritten with cited sources to cover the actually documented practice, in which latter case Weak Keep, since the Tim-Tam Slam, specifically, is already covered at Tim Tam and there might not be enough to warrant a separate article (rather than a simple redirect to Tim Tam) here. Uncle G 2005-07-01 16:14:00 (UTC)
 *  Delete . Not notable -- Infrogmation July 1, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, since it has been totally re-written from a dubious article about a non-notable practice to a well researched article about a different practice that I guess squeeks in with adiquate notability. -- Infrogmation July 2, 2005 12:55 (UTC)
 * Delete. not-notable...not verified as a bona-fide phenomenon. Tobycat 1 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologistic nonsence. Keep very odd to an American, but apparently very real. --Habap 1 July 2005 18:36 (UTC) Merge with Dunk (biscuit) as noted below. --Habap 5 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism, original research, unencyclopedic.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 1 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect new version into Dunk (biscuit): this is a special case of that topic.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 4 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contains no information other than that which is obvious from the title and some random OR crap. Clear case of article sucking. &mdash; Phil Welch 1 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
 * Keep, but better photo and less informal tone required james gibbon  1 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)
 * Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 2 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
 * Delete Not all personal habits are encyclopedic. No citations. Sounds like an inside joke. I now suggest that Tea-sucking be merged with Dunk (biscuit) and that the article be rewritten to avoid the UK/US biscuit problem, perhaps as Food dunking. The practices are very common around the world, have been studied semi-seriously, and have peculiarities that deserve note. --Tysto 2005 July 3 16:52 (UTC)
 * Since the consensus is clearly heading towards delete, I've Rewritten the article giving the above citations, to see whether Hoary will change xyr opinion. Uncle G 2005-07-02 05:53:04 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Uncle G. Yes, I've changed my opinion, and my vote. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 07:30 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This has become a strong cultural phenomena in Australia and is one of the ways that Australians (who feel constantly under pressure from US culture) define themselves. This explains the referance to Australia Day. Americans do unusual things on July 4 to state their nationality - pie-eating etc. This has as much cultural resonance.--Porturology 2 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
 * Huh? Pure fantasy, best spelled with a "B" and an "S". I recommend that readers ignore the weirdo post above. Tannin (And I'm as Australian as anyone.)
 * Yes, boss. I mean, no, boss. Australia is a large nation, surely large enough to have several societal divisions: e.g. between those who do and those who don't don't demonstrate non-Americanness on 4 July, and those who do and those who don't do odd things with biscuits and tea. -- Hoary July 2, 2005 14:03 (UTC)
 * "Australia is a large nation" The accuracy of this statement is disputed. ;-) --Tysto 2005 July 3 16:40 (UTC)


 * Yes, but your profile says your a Mexican which explains a lot. The SMH, particularly Column 8 has run articles on this as an Australian day activity by expats.--Porturology 2 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)
 * Keep after rewrite. Great job, Uncle G! Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  July 2, 2005 10:20 (UTC)
 * Keep. Never done it myself, but have heard that replacing tea with port adds to the experience. The rewrite makes the article encyclopedic - exactly the cultural info that deserves to be in wikipedia.--Takver 2 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
 * Delete. What a load of trivial, non-notable crap. Should have been speedied. Tannin 2 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
 * This is certainly a fair dinkum practice, but is tea-sucking actually the correct term? I've certainly never heard it referred to as such - although I can offer no alternatives. Tea-sucking sounds very infelicitous. However, if no alternative name is suggested, I still believe the article should be kept --[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]] Cyberjunkie   TALK  2 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
 * Upon discovering dunk (biscuit), I now believe tea-sucking should be merged therewith.--[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]] Cyberjunkie   TALK  5 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)


 * I've heard of it here in the UK (and highly reccommend it), although never by this or any other name. Keep nevertheless, a notable practice/phenomenon. the wub  "?/!"  2 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
 * Emphatic keep. An interesting practice, and an interesting article. Blank Verse   &empty;  2 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)
 * As nominated, my vote would have been to delete as a neologism. The article is now completely rewritten and does not refer to the same subject. It's now an interesting article about an unusual practice. Keep.-gadfium 2 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This is still a wildly non-encyc, not-notable article. To suggest that it originated in Australia is so other-planetary as to defy description. This is just one of those things that people do - it does not warrant an article any more than Putting on socks does. (But that was still an impressive effort by Uncle G).-Splash July 2, 2005 20:30 (UTC)
 * Keep significant social practice, emerging to prominance in the 1990s, just around the time that a major US firm bought Arnotts out actually. Fifelfoo 3 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)
 * Oh, please! I was sucking tea through biscuits before I got to primary school, about 20 years ago. And I have not a shadow of a doubt that people have been dipping biscuits in cups of tea for centuries.-Splash July 3, 2005 02:28 (UTC)
 * Yes, but are there media articles discussions and record attempts about your biscuit sucking. Have a look at some of the links in the article and try "tim tam slam" on google.--Porturology 3 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)
 * I emphatically do not accept that www.nicecupofteaandasitdown is a benchmark for establishing encyclopedic note! Along similar lines, neither is toxiccustard.com. Not every page on the web is authoritative - the overwhelming majority are not! Number of hits on Google is, IMHO, best used for establishing lack of notability &mdash; something like putting on socks gets 593000 hits, but you're not going to suggest that needs a WP article....are you? -Splash July 3, 2005 15:29 (UTC)
 * After further thought on this article, I was prepared to vote delete, as it just doesn't seem that unique a phenomenon. That was, of course, until I saw dunk (biscuit). If that is deserved of an article so is tea-sucking (though I maintain that is incorrect terminology).--[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]] Cyberjunkie   TALK  3 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)


 * Keep now it's been rewritten. J.K. 3 July 2005 04:07 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. I'm not convinced that this is more notable than any other method of drinking tea, but I could be wrong. After all, if the event in Croydon is true, it might suggest some notability.     &mdash; P Ingerson (talk) 4 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
 * Keep, as re-written. --Scimitar 4 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
 * Keep I like the new article too... Jaberwocky6669 July 5, 2005 02:52 (UTC)
 * Keep I've only recently discovered that there's a name for this (its also great with plain milk!) and I'm glad its in wikipedia. An An 5 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)


 * Move/Redirect The article as it currently exists does not appear to be the article that got VFD. It's pretty obvious from the way votes have slid from all delete to mostly keep.  I'm tempted to vote delete since an article shouldn't be edited while in VfD status and thus we should vote for what it looked like, but I do like my TimTamSlam, so I vote move. Aaron Brenneman 5 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)


 * "You are welcome to edit this article..." Jaberwocky6669 July 5, 2005 17:10 (UTC)
 * Except it wasn't really "edited". It was effectively deleted and replaced with completely new content on a wholly different topic. grlea 5 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
 * Which brings a new question: Since the article has changed completely and everyone seems to agree on its existence doesn't that make this VFD unnecessary? Jaberwocky6669 July 5, 2005 23:35 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.