Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teabag 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 Speedy. Deletion carried out by Tony Sidaway. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D TALK  EMAIL  July 9, 2005 00:29 (UTC)

Teabag sucking

 * tea-sucking was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-01. The result of the discussion was keep as rewritten.  The prior discussion can be found at Votes for deletion/Tea-sucking.

This is a copy&amp;paste of the original, unrewritten, version of tea-sucking, with the picture (Image:Tea Sucking.png) removed, that was heading directly for deletion the last time around, before it was completely rewritten to be about tea sucking rather than about teabag sucking. As I said before about the original, this article doesn't cite any sources at all, its proponents (the author and 1 other) have proferred no sources (despite the fact that this lack of verifiability was mentioned the last time around, moreover), and there are no sources to be found documenting the practice of teabag sucking; all of which make this article original research. Although the author here is anonymous, asked in the original VFD discussion for the "original content" to be "restored" and is now stating on Talk:Tea-sucking that the rewritten tea-sucking "should be removed". Uncle G 8 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. I would have voted redirect, but tea-sucking isn't really about teabags at all. -Harmil 8 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. Shake my head in sadness at the things people think belong in an encyclopedia.--Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:45 (UTC)
 * This is very frustrating. The tea-sucking VfD became a heated argument, and led to an excellent re-writing of the article to conform to WP standards.  Now, someone just blithely puts the old article back up as if that argument, consensus, and re-writing never occurred?  Why do we even bother to discuss things and try to improve the site, then?? Strong delete.  Dcarrano July 8, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tea-sucking so that the creator will be redirected there and won't crete it again. Falphin 8 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
 * Delete one of these articles is enough. Tobycat 8 July 2005 23:47 (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.