Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea Lizard
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 http://fusion.net/story/316936/tea-lizard/ Fusion, http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/31729/1/your-guide-to-the-culturally-appropriative-tea-lizard-meme Dazed and http://www.refinery29.com/2016/06/114602/tea-lizard-gma 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griggs House|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 , 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, Simpsonwave|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
— User:EditorE, 03:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ONEEVENT (Wikipedia:Notability)