Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Lizard

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 redirect to Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture. Seems the consensus is clearly against this article. As some suggested, there is a good redirect target, so redirecting. Call it a SNOW close. Tone 09:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Lizard

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

This seems to be just one trivial incident with no lasting importance. Most of the media coverage seemed to be joking about it, not serious coverage and in a sense not secondary but a part of the fun. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, classic example of a nine day wonder. PatGallacher (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete +1 -- Nsda (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, should the name stick. Also note the article talk page, discussing the article's earlier contested PROD. Dave (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kermit the Frog - The "Tea Lizard" incident could very well fit into the Kermit the Frog article if a paragraph on the character's Internet presence was added. I don't think it deserves its own page, though. Capcapandgengen (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. But Kermit the Frog is one of the most important imaginary characters in modern pop culture, Tea Lizard not so much. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable trivia which will be forgotten in a week (and I totally failed to understand from the article what all the fuss was about). BabelStone (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of in-depth reliable coverage; Wikipedia is not just a collection of everything that has made the news; it needs to have some sort of impact Spiderone 18:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the now-removed PROD: "Nothing in this article demonstrates notability of this short-lived small-scale twitter hype". (Furthermore, I forgot this was even a thing until I saw the AfD.) JudgeRM 18:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After updates to the page were made, my second choice would be to redirect to Kermit the Frog#Kermit in Internet culture. JudgeRM (talk to me) 15:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's obviously based on reliable sources, why else would they Pass it for DYK? Americanfreedom (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is they? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming "they" are the people that run DYK. JudgeRM 18:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of every single thing that has ever been mentioned in the media. Not in the slightest bit notable. ‑ Iridescent 18:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irrelevant, nonsensical, and likely to be forgotten in two weeks. Luna ibis 19:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would work over on Wikia.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ and shame on DYK for running this. Memecruft.--WaltCip (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to strong delete and salt on account of the article creator's ridiculous and immature tirade below.--WaltCip (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what a mess. So someone on Good Morning America didn't recognize Kermit, mistweeted and that briefly became a thing, in the veritable firehose of ephemeral things that become things on twitter, day in, day out. Delete as trivial, non-notable. Selectively merge something to the Kermit article, I guess. I don't even think it merits a selective merge to List of Internet phenomena but others might. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Has been pulled and listed at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Removed#July_2016, I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, "I didn't know" or care but now will never get that time back. delete memecruft as not notable. WP:SNOW should be considered. --DHeyward (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW should not be considered. It hasn't even been 24 hours yet, people from other time zones haven't seen it, and there's some interest in merging (even a Keep) so it's just an uphill battle. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: This article should never have been created, approved, nominated for a DYK or passed for a DYK. The content of this page is nonsensical, trivial and unencyclopedic. I doubt even a website like Encyclopedia Dramatica would allow it to remain. I simply hope more discretion will be used with future DYK nominations. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 22:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is quite possibly the most random and non-notable article to be made here. GamerPro64 23:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evident long-lasting notability. Someone made a dumb tweet, and a bunch of commentators jumped on it. That being said, this is just hilarious. Someone needs to rewrite WP:MEME and get it approved - I'm up for that. As a second choice, Redirect to Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture. GAB^gab 23:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clearly not notable, fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a condensed version to Kermit the Frog along with a link to Sad Kermit and some talk of But that's none of my business for a "Kermit in Internet culture section. Not that I'll shed tears if it gets deleted. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The very arguments used here could be used against the article Sad Kermit. Having never heard of it, I clicked over, the article has essentially gone untouched since a few months after the article was first created. I'll save those that haven't clicked the link the time, it's a youtube video that had 15 minutes of fame back in 2007 and is now long forgotten. As someone above wrote, there's 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Dave (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right that it doesn't deserve an article. I just went ahead and was bold in creating the Internet section I suggested, and merged Sad Kermit in the process. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons above. It is embarrassing that this made it through the DYK process. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some way or another What is this??!!!!!!! WHY ARE PEOPLE SUPPORTING DELETION OF THIS???!!!!!!!!!!!!! In fact, why are people thinking this is a good idea to nominate for deletion in the first place?! This deletion nomination is absurd from the very start. The nominator is only deleting the article based on his opinion that "Most of the media coverage seemed to be joking about it, not serious coverage and in a sense not secondary but a part of the fun" clearly without reading much of the sources cited in the article. I'm sorry, but articles from Fusion, Dazed and Refinery29 about how the GMA is considered an example of black erasure are pretty legit analysis and not just trivial fun like the nominator is bullshitly reasoning. It's funny how you people are willing to keep a nine-short-sentence article about a house that didn't really have a lot coverage outside of just being a part of a popular film, and yet here you guys are willing to delete a notable topic that has a lot more analysis from relaible sources than what you people think. I could kind of understand if people would argue the topic shouldn't have its own article given that it was only WP:ONEEVENT, but if that's so, than it should be part of a related article given the significant discussion from publications including the three sources I mentioned in this discussion. In fact, why don't we delete another article about a meme that had the same populartiy as this? Is it just me or are many Wikipedia users getting more and more ridicolous? I'M GETTING FED UP WITH THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!! editorEهեইдအ😎 03:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: EditorE (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

I think this summarizes the problem with the article, plus, the article would need a full rewrite, as many people have said they camnot understand what's the point, as well as it doesn't indicate why it is notable--other than having a few sources. Ignoring the shouting and repetitive characters in your comment, it looks a bit WP:POINTY, "If other trivial articles can exist, even when I have AFD them, then I can write any article with trivialities and it will be inherently Wikipedia material", which it is not the case. The article, as currently written, lacks of any basic requirement to be an encyclopedic article, and it is (now) just a text of something that happened and won't have a bigger impact like other Kermit-related memes. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, however, is that the article is not "just trivial" or "just fun". Are we seriously gonna use terms like "trivia" just to delete an article or info from an article that actually is more than just a joke or "celebrity gossip" only because someone thought no one would care. Is this what Wikipedia has come to, any sort of meme is automatically just a trivial fucking joke nobody fucking cares? Because that's you people are basically suggesting. Well, then, why don't we just delete similar articles about memes like Unexpected John Cena and Rickrolling that are also "trivial" and just a joke the media has fun with based on that same logic? I know this may be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument I'm making here, but you people need to see how ridiculous your reasonings are for deleting this article. And just because some readers can't understand an article doesn't mean the topic is automatically non-notable. Seriously!!!!!! UGGHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! editorEهեইдအ😎 04:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take the criticism personally. I know some people have been overly vocal in their deletion votes, and that's unfortunate (it's also a fact of life on Wikipedia). However, if you ignore those, and look at the delete votes that calmly stick to a logical argument, there is some good feedback for future Wikipedia efforts. I think all of us that have been around here for any length of time have articles we worked on that we now look at and say "what was I thinking?". I know it's frustrating to see something you work on get trashed in the court of public opinion, but better days lie ahead. Dave (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Rickrolling has been going on for many, many years and Unexpected John Cena has been around for a shorter but still significant period. I come across them all the time when I'm online. While I do see the "Kermit with a cup of tea" image, I have never heard of the term "tea lizard". I don't see this as having anywhere near the level of penetration that your counter examples do. --Khajidha (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't speak for others, once you use vulgarity in your argument, you've lost my support.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture where it is discussed in at an appropriately condensed length. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture, this is nowhere near widespread enough for its own page. --Khajidha (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not long-term notable enough for an article of its own. (Should we create an article every time a major broadcaster screws up?) Wouldn't be against a mention in Kermit the Frog as mentioned above. — foxj 13:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is seriously one the funest articles I've seen here. Let's stay on the Internet. Akskdjfjrhrheh (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as coverage is coverage, serious or not, the quantity IS serious. Ranze (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Patar; the quantity of coverage is sufficient for a mention somewhere, even if it's not enough to establish notability. ansh 666 21:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it can alternatively be moved to some dank meme website where it belongs. This is another example of how DYK has been turned into a pile garbage.--Catlemur (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the nominator of this AfD I am happy with the paragraph in Kermit the Frog and the Tea Lizard page redirected there. I am also still of the opinion that the New York Magazine and Popular Science sources cited there are joining the others in taking the opportunity to joke, and maybe to educate readers about the differences between frogs and lizards, but not covering the event in any serious way. I think policy calls for "significant coverage." Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. I read the article when it was in DYK, and was completely baffled about what it was about, or why it was in any way notable, but I assumed that because other experienced editors had reviewed it, it was some form of modern culture thing that had passed me by. Further investigation however has led me to a different conclusion. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2016 (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.