Talk:Terry Tate: Office Linebacker/Archives/2012

Deletion request
This is a character from a series of advertisements. I fail to see how this meets the criteria for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.228.2 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - this article has just as much right to exist as other articles - such as LonelyGirl15, Mr. Whipple, Energizer Bunny, Spongemonkeys, Meaty Cheesy Boys etc. This character started as a Reebok commercial but has continued to live on despite the lack of corporate sponsorship which make it a bit unique. Mconwell (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture
That's a rather tame picture of Mr. Tate. Isopropyl 02:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, but you don't really see his face when he tackles somebody, do you? -- Slarti ( 19  92 ) 23:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Abortive run for Gov of CA
I do remember articles in the LA Times, during the rush to throw in candidates for the 2003 recall election (the same election that saw over a 100 people, including Gary Coleman, run for the office that Arnold won), there was a last minute push by Reebok to push Terry Tate as an actual candidate (no doubt for humor and PR instead of actually hoping to win). It was aborted because they just missed the deadline for registering the candidate. There were at least two LA Times articles, anyone have access to their archive? There were some hillarious quotes, as I recall (excuse the pun). --Bobak 15:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That pun was rather awesome. I didn't get it for a second, but when it clicked in my head, I knew it was a winner. As far as Terry Tate for governor, I feel as if I remember hearing that Rasta (as in the actor as opposed to the character) wanted to run but didn't apply on time. However, I don't have LA Times archive access, so I don't know. -- Kicking222 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sex slang in several names
I noticed a load of sexual slang in the names of some of the characters and companies (Ron Felcher, Paul Merkin, Sanchez, Steamer & Co.) Dunno if it's relevant but I don't think it can have been an accident. There might be more but I haven't spotted them. FreemDeem (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading an article on this a while ago, where Reebok spokesmen played coy about the dirty names, but I can't seem to find it anymore. Does anyone know where it might have been? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.9.94 (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found them (three of them):

http://www.zug.com/live?func=view_thread&thread_id=28776 http://www.zug.com/live?func=view_thread&thread_id=39889 http://www.zug.com/live?func=view_thread&thread_id=39960

Maybe someone else knows of more articles detailing the controversy behind the names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.9.94 (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Request should be denied
The subject matter of this entry is entirely notable. This was an advertising campaign for a major US company (Reebok) that proceeded for a substantial period of time. It is made more notable by the fact that the campaign was reinvigorated on 10/20/08.

In my mind, the person that wants to delete the post has a problem with the subject matter of the new campaign. The campaign attacks Sarah Palin. Given the fact that the request to delete the entry occurred after the new campaign was released, I believe that the request for deletion is partisin in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.54.75 (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am the person (now newly singed up) that makred this as deletable. For the record, I'm Canadian and could care less about Sarah Palin.

This article is about a series of advertisements and there are thousands of advertisements created every year. Why should this one be notable? Loftwyr (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

It is notable for the fact that the videos have gone viral. The number of views of the videos on youtube alone suggest the notability of these ads. Here it is over 5 years later after the first time one of them aired in the US, and only now does the page get requested for deletion? Why did you come to this page 5 years later? Because the ad campaign is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.196.0.122 (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request should be denied
It's definitely worthy of a listing in wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.234.99 (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability
For everyone wondering about notability, it's there. The Brisbane Times commentary alone should be sufficient, and if not, the New York Times page I'm about to add seals it. Clearly passes WP:WEB with attention from two news sources (one of which is the New York Friggin' Times!) WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 12:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

confused
Did Terry Tate actually attack Palin? Or is that a look alike? The article should make it clear, I still have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.143.193 (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs a source either way. WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 23:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)