Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Studies Index


 * 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   delete. henrik • talk  20:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Tea Studies Index

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Articles has been tagged as lacking context and not establishing notability for a full year, without improvement. What IS a tea studies index? Logical Cowboy (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. After looking through some of the references provided in the article, I found this site, which seems to indicate that the table is a library classification scheme about tea studies. I think this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, as the table appears wholesale on that site, plus on this blog referenced from the article, there may be copyright problems. The blog does specifically say "We give Wikipedia the following article/post for usage and public domain", but they may not be the original authors. Before allowing this content in Wikipedia I would want to investigate the book they cite, "'Chinese-English Tea Studies Terminology', Translators and Editors: Tsai, Rong-Tsang and Steven R. Jones. Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute, Co., Ltd. (2010), ISBN 978-957-9690-06-5". However, I can't find this book on Google Books or in WorldCat, and if the article gets deleted for other reasons then there would be little point in chasing it up anyway. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree that there may be copyright issues here. Wikipedia doesn't accept material who's license grants usage specifically to wikipedia.  It's got to be open for all to use.  Also, this concept doesn't seem to have any coverage outside of this one book.  This article seems to be promoting the book which is not what wikipedia is for. RadioFan (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the co-author of the book where the information is taken, it is for wiki to use for Chinese/English tea terms reference, we also use this at the Tenfu Tea College. icetea8 (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply Still fails WP:NOTHOWTO.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment worth noting that the article was created and nearly entirely edited by the author of the sole reference in the article. Hard not to see this as at least in part promotional. RadioFan (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2012 (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.