Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Eating Tasty Animals (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep-- JForget 23:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

People Eating Tasty Animals
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm bringing this from prod to AFD, because it's already been nominated for AFD once, and I think it should get more attention here. No vote. Ral315 » 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep as sourced and notable. Important as a test case of cybersquatting laws (and would be notable for that alone), but also well-known as a counterorganization to its similarly-named doppelganger. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This and this are enough to convince me. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  18:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Where the page could really use an WikiFary's blessing, I feel that it needs to be kept for it's historical value. Xitit 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It was a prominent case of "domain squatting" which was fairly widely covered in the late 1990's, and which led to precedent-setting quasi-legal actions over the ownership of the "Peta.org" domain lasting several years. AnonMoos 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs some cleanup to 2007 standards but a notable organization (primarily for the domain case, though). --Dhartung | Talk 23:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep Sourced, and one of the best known cases of domain squatting. Edward321 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per previous reasons, plus, frankly, PETA getting egg in their face makes me grin. HalfShadow 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW. Jtrainor 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE no such organization exists. The website lost it's domain not because of what it was is but of what it wasn't. It didn't exist. It was far from the first time a parody lost it's domain as well. There is nothing historically or culturally notable about this non-existent group. If the only reason for keeping this is the debate about cyber-squatting than a position in cyber-law or about the person who bought the register would be more proper. The issue I have is not with the page, nor the content; rather that this page, as it is titled now, references a non-existent company. If it is strongly felt that the case is is important (to which I agree), then a delete of this article and the creation of Mike_Doughney which could cover this topic, or an expansion at Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act. Or both. Thoughts? I would argue that many would hold Mosaic Communications Corporation et al vs AOL LLC and Unnamed regarding Netscape.org and Mosaic-Netscape.com to be more important as two legal, and partnered companies fought over two names held by each-other. We could also look at the case of WWF vs WWF over the wwf.com site, which was later fought over when some teens bought and squatted the site wwf.com, the final ruling overturning many of the precedents previously set regarding cyber-squatting as the then WWFE pointed to the lack of use/update to the wwf.com site. Prior to this PETA case was NWA.com and NWA.org National Wrestling Allience vs National Wanking Association, the first parody case, and there is also the cases about shared legitimate names. The case itself is relevant, not the entity, or non-entity, in this situation. The information is in the wrong place and the non-company itself is not relevant. A redirect to People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals would solve this issue. This group deserves mention, not its own page.Lostinlodos 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. What's a "Snowball Keep"?  And if deletion is called for because something is "non-existent" then 90% of Wikipedia would require deletion.  Captain Infinity 22:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.