Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nice cup of tea and a sit down

Nice cup of tea and a sit down was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. 10 votes to keep, 6 votes to delete. Postdlf 23:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice cup of tea and a sit down

Wikipedia is not a web directory, their site has an Alexa ranking of 535,109 , though it is a good site. Dunc|☺ 17:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Concur with duncharris. --Improv 17:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Cult website that has spawned a book, I think it is within the realms of notablility, and Wikipedia is not paper. Darksun 19:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Willing to change my vote if the article establishes that this is indeed some notable cult website. Gamaliel 20:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  Done, see article now —siroχo 00:36, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Change vote to keep. The article is pretty vague, but it seems the subject is indeed somewhat notable. Gamaliel 17:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: it is kind of famous, but I'm not sure there's much more to say than "it's a website; a fairly famous one; oh, and they wrote a book". Feel free to prove me wrong and come up with some genuine information, but I can't see this ever being more than a sub-stub. - IMSoP 20:26, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A famous website just seems to me to be like a really old grasshopper: it may be old for its kind, but it's still short-lived. There are exceptions, but I'd see them as extremely few, partly because we are a web site ourselves, and people seeking information about Amazon.com can go to Amazon.com more quickly than they can go to us and read an entry explaining Amazon.com. Our service in these matters would be to discuss such sites in terms of history and impact, and that's only going to be necessary or possible with sites that are more than popular. Geogre 21:15, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  The article now explains that this site was an internet phenomenon that attracted much media attention. It also places the book as the more notable item, which is currently true. —siroχo 11:25, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertising. And site does not meet the high bar of notability required for websites. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, fully agree with what Geogre said. - Taxman 22:42, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Strong keep, note that the book has a sales rank of 258 101 on www.amazon.co.uk Unless that amazon site differs from www.amazon.com in how it ranks sales, that is very strong. If i've somehow misinterpreted this, tell me and Ill change my vote —siroχo 23:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, if expanded. Moderatly notable cult sites should have an entry. Did it spawn a catch-prase?
• Keep. Seems somewhat notable, needs expansion. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:37, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, if just to teach people not to create stubs after stubs after stubs. The book is just a mild text on how to drink tea. How one can expand this without making it advertisement I do not know. Mandel 08:52, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

  I explained a bit about the cultural significance as an intertnet phenomenon and the media's attraction to the website. —siroχo 00:36, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

  Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Please consider rereading the deletion policy —siroχo 00:11, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Keep and expand. Radman1 17:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain per Siroxo, Delete the article has essentially no content. If someone wants to add content, go ahead. But this is not an article; it's a link to a website. Why keep that? Wolfman 01:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  I've expanded it. —siroχo 00:36, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, but instead of being an article about the website, which by the way spawned a book, it should be an article about the book, which by the way developed from a website. Amazon.co.uk sales rank is now up to 118. JamesMLane 04:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Notice: I've done some expansion to the article to explain its cultural siginificance a bit. I don't think the VfD vote applies any more to this article, as it is clearly not just about a cult website, but about a much larger phenomenon. —siroχo 00:36, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously - David Gerard 07:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; widely followed generally UK-specific cult website, Alexa ratings inappropriate to measure this. James F. (talk) 14:12, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: but still needs expansion, I can't really tell what the book is about. Surely someone can give the book as much attention as Star Trek: TNG season 4 episode 8 got. Key45 21:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.