Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tea Ladies

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. Sandstein 19:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tea Ladies

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. There was only 8 episodes according to IMDb which may be the reason I can't find anything significant. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The worst case would be merger to tea lady per policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE but it would be easiest to leave well alone. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with merging a non-notable show to a notable concept. The Media section in the tea lady article is similar to a popular culture section which is generally discouraged. There is nothing to merge anyway per WP:V because there are no reliable sources in the article. The argument that it would be easiest to leave the article alone could apply to any deletion discussion. SL93 (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to William G. Stewart. Cannot see how this is notable in its own right. There is some useful content here, and it is a possible search term. But would be better placed with a due weight trim in William G. Stewart, which will also incrementally add some weight to that article. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoziwe We shouldn't be merging unreferenced content. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But references are readily available. Aoziwe (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If references are readily available, this is notable and there's no reason to merge! matt91486 (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are references readily available to support a due weight short paragraph or a sentences in the merge target. I do not think there is sufficient to support notability in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Nominator across the board. Fails GNG and NFILM. No significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. Merging into the general article Tea lady is not appropriate due to WP:SYNTH since these are two disparate subjects - one is a former television show and one is a concept or perhaps encyclopedic content regarding a job description. Also, there is no verifiable information that would provide for merging into the William G. Stewart. Without acceptable coverage this is not a notable show per Wikipedia standards. If acceptable references are "readily available" then please post them here so they may be analyzed. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William G. Stewart per Aoziwe - given references are available to support a redirection WP:ATD applies. Deus et lex (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry but no references have been presented nor any independent sources. So, Stewart has not communicated the actual impact of this television show on his body of work. If this is the case, then how is this show relatable enough to Stewart to have a merge ~~redirect~~ to his Biography? None of the text in the article has citations.

Therefore, beyond who the actors were, we don't know what else is true. One so-called reference in the article (and not in the body) is Television Au. This barely has a passing mention of this show that had already run its course, according to the text. The coverage of this article is barely mentioning all the TV shows on that channel during the 2014 season. And it is set up like a blog. So, this source does not seem to be a reliable independent secondary source.

The other so-called source, IMDB - is user generated. And it has nothing more than passing mentions. Being user generated means this is not an independent reliable source. As stated above, without some sort of acceptable sourcing, it is best not to merge ~~redirect~~ to a notable topic. But, I suppose getting rid of the content in the article and making it a redirect is acceptable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Some of the above comment is...not related to this show at all. This is not a show that was anywhere near TV in 2014. So it having no longer been on the air then is not particularly relevant to this discussion. matt91486 (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is related. The show would be a rerun in 2014. So you are wrong. It was on ATV0 (Melbourne ATV )according to this [1] which I posted above. Use the "find" search function for the page and plug in "Tea" or "Tea Ladies". Please pay attention to what other editors are posting. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the link you provided. It does not say anything about being rebroadcast. The article is being framed as a historical retrospective of fifty years of the network, and indicates it is summarizing shows broadcast over a 50 year period -- including this one, in the 1970s. If they did do a celebratory re-airing, this is not at all indicated in the particular link that you shared. So perhaps please pay attention to your own posts. matt91486 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found a one-page article in TV Week from 1979 that mentions The Tea Ladies in discussion of other roles by Pat McDonald. One would think that other television-related magazine and newspaper articles from the period would have some mention, perhaps enough to compile a short but complete encyclopedia article, although they may not be easily accessible online. Trove newspaper and magazines don't seem to yield any coverage. There appears to be an unrelated 1979 TV movie with the same name written by Ray Galton and Johnny Speight. If the content or edit history could be preserved via merging or redirecting pending location of additional sources, that would be preferable to deletion. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article seems to suggest this came out of a British version of the same name which was produced as a pilot. I had assumed this was the Johnny Speight and Ray Galton sitcom of the same name set in the Houses of Parliament (featuring Mollie Sudgen, Dandy Nichols and Patricia Hayes), mentioned above - one episode of which was broadcast. Indeed its entry in Mollie Sugden's article links to the article about the Australian series. However IMDb suggests that that was indeed not broadcast in the UK until 1979 (ie after the Australian version) and William G Stewart does not seem to have been involved. Thus I wonder how accurate the information is here. Checking Gnome the Radio Times entry confirms the IMDb info - see https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/fd204df544b14a2d9e3207b86105d5e5 and indicates it was broadcast in January 1979. It is possible it was made pre 1978 and not broadcast for a few years, or William G Stewart was involved with an earlier project and the 1979 one (presumably filmed in 1978) was a second attempt at a UK version inspired by the Australian. I found coverage of this UK version here https://www.britishclassiccomedy.co.uk/the-tea-ladies-1979 and here https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/the_tea_ladies/ - however despite the seemingly identical premise, there is no mention of a connection to the 1978 Australian series. The 1979 UK version was also rebroadcast in 1998 at the time of Speight's death during a tribute night. Thus I wonder if although a one-off the UK version's existence has an impact on the notability if it were incorporated into the article. Sorry to confuse things, but I thought this was worth commenting on. Dunarc (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Sources currently on the page are not adequate. My own search yielded the same results as others have noted above - passing comments in TV guides don't really cut it. It's important to remember WP:NOTTEMPORARY in discussions of pre-internet media, but I've done a quick search of Australian newspaper databases and nothing has come up. Do not see the merit of adding this to tea lady given it's complete lack of notability. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with delete once again. See my original post and original rationale. Based on that I don't think a merge or redirect is a suitable outcome. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.