Talk:Tea Lizard

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture.

A fact from Tea Lizard appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 July 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that some journalists have marked Good Morning America's incorrect labeling of Kermit the Frog as "Tea Lizard" an example of "cultural appropriation" and "black erasure"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tea Lizard.

Wikipedia

Internet culture

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Worthwhile? edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

This entry makes very little sense, and seems to assume a reader knows the pertinent facts, such as what a 'tea lizard' is, and why anyone would care.The article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:A19B:16ED:515C:82F9 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I concur with the IP. After reading the article, I still do not understand the topic being discussed. The New York quote meant to "summarize" the subject doesn't help either. Ruby 2010/2013 15:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It didn't make a lot of sense to me either, but then I guess I'm not very hip. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why is it tolerated that the author of this nonsensical article removed the deletion proposal? -- Nsda (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:PROD it is allowed for involved editors to delete a PROD tag. With that said, I agree with the above that this article doesn't seem notable. If I understand it correctly, it's about a misidentification about a character in an internet meme. I'm not sure this is a battle I have time to fight now, but if someone else does, the next step is WP:AFD.Dave (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree it should probably be deleted (or heavily abridged and merged) in accordance with WP:GNG (and common-sense). Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included" and it's hard to see any other convincing reason (beyond coverage) that would suggest that this needs an article.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've nominated it for deletion. Let's see what people think. Kitfoxxe (talk)

Easily one of the dumbest articles I've ever seen. Why was this featured on the frontage? I think it should be deleted altogether. 100.14.69.51 (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic