- 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Tea race (competitions)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Tea race (competitions) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article content would be better handled in Clipper (potentially WP:REDUNDANTFORK). The creator advises that this is a translation from Russian Wikipedia, but the majority of the sources for this subject are written in English. The two levels of translation involved might explain some inaccurate or questionable content. It would be much better to be rewritten as a part of Clipper, using that article's existing sources for the bulk of the new content. The writing quality is poor. (Information: discussion originated at WT:WikiProject_Ships#Two_poor_quality_articles. A similar AfD is being submitted for Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae, to follow shortly.) ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 18:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and History. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 19:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Merge with Clipper—no evidence of significant coverage that deserves a forking. Obviously, the poor prose doesn't help, but even without that there really isn't much going for the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and move to
tea race. Not limited to clippers. See
JSTOR
23885249. Lots of material for expansion.
See this.We already have an article on the Great Tea Race of 1866. — Srnec ( talk) 00:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) - CommentsThe history blog on tea races offered by Srnec has every sign of relying on
Great Tea Race of 1866 as its sole source (find a fact in the blog that is not in the Wikipedia article).
This subject is plagued with poorly researched books/sources – WP:HISTRS should be firmly applied. David R. MacGregor is a key source for the subject, with many more books than the one listed in the Great Tea Race article. Basil Lubbock is another important source, but can be demonstrated to have problems, so needs to be used with care.
The JSTOR article is not supported by others writing in the field. (Note where the author had worked. I would deem the JSTOR article a primary source. The key point is whether there was the high level of interest in any races in the press, or whether a premium was written into the bill of lading of any steamer. Sources do not say that either applied, and my own searches of newspapers confirms that point.) The steamer trade rapidly suffered from overcapacity, resulting in the Far Eastern Freight Conference.
Wikipedia has, IMHO, a reasonable set of articles that cover this range subjects, with the weak point being Clipper, which does not cover the tea trade in these ships well and needs expansion – but from quality sources. If the steamship races were to be felt important, there is space in Steamship#Long-distance commercial steamships for some comment, and something would be appropriate in the yet-to-be-written section of Clipper. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 08:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)- Thing is, I would not have expected an article on
clippers (or
steamships) to cover any particular trade in detail at all. That is what struck me first about the nom—that the tea races should be folded into clipper is extremely nonintuitive to me, that the present article should be regarded as a fork of the ship article likewise. Perhaps split
tea clipper out.
Srnec (
talk) 11:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Clippers were used on for a small range of cargoes over a limited number of routes. With speed being something close to a defining characteristic of this sort of vessel, I am puzzled why their relative speeds should be
nonintuitive
. The subject occupies a large part of any RS on the subject. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 18:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Clippers were used on for a small range of cargoes over a limited number of routes. With speed being something close to a defining characteristic of this sort of vessel, I am puzzled why their relative speeds should be
- Thing is, I would not have expected an article on
clippers (or
steamships) to cover any particular trade in detail at all. That is what struck me first about the nom—that the tea races should be folded into clipper is extremely nonintuitive to me, that the present article should be regarded as a fork of the ship article likewise. Perhaps split
tea clipper out.
Srnec (
talk) 11:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comments If the race has an important historical event, which was covered in the press, watched by the whole country, the topic can be covered in a separate article. Quote:
Indeed, the annual tea race was a Victorian sensation: the ships' progress was reported by telegraph and could be followed in the papers. I've added
sources to the article. There's a
pdf in the link below.--
Товболатов (
talk) 11:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Performance Evaluation of the 19th Century Clipper Ship Cutty Sark: A Comparative Study-- Товболатов ( talk) 12:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and rename Tea races. While the 1866 race is the most famous, the 1872 one is notable as well (also at Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race Cutty Sark and Thermopylae). There are sources out there, e.g. The Tea Races of the 19th Century ( Hudson River Maritime Museum), multiple chapters each dedicated to a specific tea race in The China Clippers. AfD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- keep. There's a discussion to be had in talk pages, on how the various articles should be split up or merged, but it's become pretty clear these tea race articles all meet GNG, and there's no gratuitous CONTENTFORKing, just cleanup and improvement. Including this collective subject. — siro χ o 03:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - Clear pass of GNG and the subject is dsitinct from Clipper. As per Clarityfiend, deletion is not for cleanup, and if the cleanup requires merges or consolidation, a considered structured merge, considering all related articles, would be better than imposing one from AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 17:50, 7 August 2023 (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.