Talk:Tea Lizard

Worthwhile?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)
 * 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)