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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 16:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People Eating Tasty Animals

[edit]

Non-notable webpage. It seems to have been created by one person and not updated since 1996. He did hold the domain peta.org for a while, but lost it to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in a court case (sufficiently described in that page). There are about 90 000 Google hits for "People Eating Tasty Animals", but most of them are not related to this organization/website. Apoc2400 14:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest framing your delete argument in terms of WP:WEB criteria. Antonrojo 15:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or if opinion is against outright keeping, Merge with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, specifially the external links sections. I agree that the case is dealt with with sufficently in that page, but this a good collection of links which I feel should be maintained. --Billpg 15:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether you feel strongly about ethical treatment of animals or not, this website parody is no more encyclopedic than any other parody, and less so than most.--Anthony.bradbury 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to a section in PETA explaining domain-name conflict. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there, as thirty seconds of looking at the article would have shown you. It's been there since June 2005. Delete; domain-name squatters are a dime a dozen, and there's no reason for this one in particular to have an article. —Cryptic 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally feel this one isn't a "domain-name squatter";
  1. He got tech-news attention.
  2. He actually did something with the site, rather than just a "This domain for sale" page.
  3. PETA (... treatment of animals) were engaging the same practices they were suing over.
- --Billpg 22:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable, and the website itself has been dormant for a long, long time - not relevant anymore. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 22:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the article had described notable criticism of PETA (and there is quite a bit, especially from animal welfare organizations), it would have been better to merge the information in the main article for PETA. As it is it's just a description of a long-dead parody website. --Charlene 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a well know parody of PETA. --Deenoe 23:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known domain name conflict, well-known website. --- RockMFR 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main PETA article. The page doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB (or if it does, it does it just barely) and the topic is already well discussed there. JoshuaZ 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable PETA parody. dryguy 04:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Encyclopedically non-notable and ephemeral website. Fails WP:WEB. This topic is already discussed in the main PETA article and doesn't need its own article (I personally don't think its notable enough for the main PETA article either...) Bwithh 04:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by original nominator): If this is actually notable, how about a move to Michael Doughney? This "organization" is just him anyway, and I think he was the owner of the domain. Also, what disturbs me is the disambiguation page at Peta. I think it gives this article undue attention, as it is very unlikely that someone searching for "peta" is really looking for this. --Apoc2400 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on the grounds that it is very notable. --Dennisthe2 08:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JoshuaZ. Although this is an interesting example of domain-name hijacking that got a bit of attention at the time, it is adequately covered in the main PETA article. —Cel ithemis 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Anomo 04:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, obviously a well known "group." --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google lists a total of 154 pages linking to http://www.mtd.com/tasty/ which has been the address since 1996. --Apoc2400 12:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that if the website was well known, there would be a lot more links to it. --Apoc2400 14:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it? It is 10 years old, after all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- ABigBlackMan 17:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or Keep (my second choice). If merged, don't just add the external link, add a sentence or two to the article -- if there's no related text in the article, someone will likely delete it later on as irrelevant and possibly just spam. The legal dispute makes the content notable -- the question of whether it gets a standalone article or a section in the PETA article is a purely editorial, not delete/include, decision as I see it. --A. B. 07:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's already related text in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. What, other than the link, are you suggesting be merged? —Cel ithemis 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, just add the link. Sorry. --A. B. 17:31, 15 November 2006 (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.