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 delete‎. Astroturfing and drive-by comments aside, there is a general consensus that this is not a suitable subject for an article. There was some interest in a merge but not much consensus on what or where, but if that can be sorted out, let me know and I'll be happy to facilitate the merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tater Tot (cat)[edit]

Tater Tot (cat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Coverage fails WP:SUSTAINED, and the article fails WP:ONEEVENT. Just one internet fad subject of hundreds. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Internet, and Utah. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Tater Tot the disabled kitten is not merely a fad. The reach of this kitten is global, and has dominated social media, the internet, news, and has affected people's lives in many ways that random fads do not. People's lives are being changed. That is not a fad. CTR1874 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What? Whose lives are being changed? It’s unfortunate that a disabled cat would die so young, but it’s a cat. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Without commenting on the quality of the argument for AFD purposes, the poster is likely referring to the fact that Tater Tot and his slogan "keep going out of spite" have become to some degree inspirational motivators for humans who are trying to persevere through life difficulties such as physical or mental ailments/ impairment and other challenging personal situations.TheBlinkster (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete good to see that people are as hyperbolic about kittens as ever. Quite literally the dictionary example of an Internet fad, not generally notable at all and honestly only has a bunch of articles about it because churnalism is what we're stuck with now. AryKun (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he's so perfect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannajh (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We have a glut of articles during the short period of time when they were a popular meme, and essentially no coverage since then. As said by the nom, this indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage that would indicate notability. I would also be fine if this were sent back to Draft, and then either restored or covered at List of Internet phenomena if there was ever later sources to provide evidence that there was true sustained coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a bad article. Agletarang (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a great article for the famous tater tot cat that has been seen by millions of people. I’m not sure why it’s even being considered for deletion. There are thousands of news sources covering tater tot.btwfrost (talk) 1:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — Btwfrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep There are numerous articles covering various internet famous cats who more than fit criteria for coverage. This one is no different. To target a disabled kitten's who passed away so recently is profoundly ignorant considering Wikipedia pages excel at immortalizing figures who have made an impact on many people's lives.Gorokag (talk) 2:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as it meets GNG and has worldwide coverage. I'll IAR and do OTHERTHINGS by pointing out the fact that various incidents like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carberry highway collision (2nd nomination) also fail WP:SUSTAINED but were kept on the grounds of GNG. Tater Tot's sticker has the same breadth of coverage. There's no reason to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Kericho truck crash but not this. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Bit late to the reply, but are you seriously arguing that an accident that killed 52 people is comparable to a disabled kitten that lived for one and a half months? I fully expected to see an accident that killed like 3 people when I clicked that link, but that is honestly a very bad comparison. AryKun (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above: Fails SUSTAINED, ONEEVENT, NOTNEWS. This is an Internet fad that someone managed to make an article about. A merge into List of Internet phenomena, as suggested by Rorshacma, is also acceptable. But not a stand-alone article for something that lasted a handful of months and which is unlikely to receive any real coverage in the future. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Delete or Redirect and merge salvageable content to List of Internet phenomena. Unfortunately, while the story behind this can be emotional, it ultimately has not enough notability to stand as an article on Wikipedia. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/partial merge per AryKun. We really can't be having articles on anything that goes viral these days. People like cute animals but there should be sustained coverage beyond a brief burst of news for a stand-alone article on a cat. Few of these sources are actually original reporting, it's easy to repackage the same content. Maybe Cats and the Internet could include this, but there would just be so many of them. Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created an article about "viral pet" that seems to have withstood so far: Eclipse (dog). But she had at least 5 years' sustained coverage. I don't see sustained coverage here. However WP:SUSTAINED mentions organizations and future events by name, and by inference living persons, none of which may pertain to this article. I'd like to hear more debate about that. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This doesn't meet SUSTAINED, or NOTNEWS, nor arguably ONEEVENT. But such "Internet-famous pets" do probably meet the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE threshold for inclusion in a list. It's correct that "we really can't be having articles on anything that goes viral these days"; it's a never-ending and increasing amount of very short-lifecycle stuff. But almost-notable animals are probably of borderline encyclopedic interest enough to listify them in a general article on "Internet stuff", or even a more specific split-off article about such animals, if something like List of Internet phenomena gets too long. All the emoting in the keep comments above generally makes me lean even stronger toward merge, or even delete if came to that. This is not a venue for trying to guilt-shame other editors for not being as heartstring-pulled as you are about cutesy animals (and I'm probably in more cute cats Facebook groups that you are anyway. >;-) PS: List of individual cats is another potential merge target, and/or another source of entries to split off into a list of Internet cats or something, if we wanted to do that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 00:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ONEEVENT, if it applies to cats, would merely suggest changing the scope of the article to the notable event, not an outright deletion. Also, I don't think we can really evaluate WP:SUSTAINED after one month for something that was covered for multiple weeks. That said, I'd be fine with a merge to List of individual cats or Cats and the Internet. Otherwise, keep for at least a few more months to evaluate SUSTAINED. —siroχo 06:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If the issue is that it hasn't been long enough to establish if something is actually notable, wouldn't the ideal solution be to Draftify it for a couple months to see if additional coverage is forthcoming and restore it at that point, rather than Keeping it until then? Rorshacma (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be okay with draftifying it to see if more coverage appears. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm generally ok with that idea. But in hopes of avoiding backdoor deletion, is there someone interested in maintaining the draft? —siroχo 20:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, as above. Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a lot of reliable sourcing here. Pages for animals are more complicated. PickleG13 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A search for Internet cat turns up at least 15 cats on the first page that nobody knows or cares about. If we're going to make articles about every cat that goes viral on TikTok and then gets 10 articles written about it because it's easy clickbait, we're going to be making a lot of terrible articles. AryKun (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @AryKun But clickbait "if it bleeds it leads" stuff is totally okay, right? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think the accident is non-notable, nominate it for deletion. In any case, we don't have articles on every minor accident that kills 10 people somewhere, just the larger ones. If this was a cat with actual notability like Grumpy Cat, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it stands, it's a kitten with twisted legs that died in 1.5 months and did absolutely nothing; if we're making an article on this, we should make one on every random animal that has a viral Reddit post and a couple churnalistic articles spawned from that. AryKun (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, we're seriously going to treat a couple thousand members in a Facebook group and a similar number of Instagram and TikTok posts as a serious measure of impact? I will guarantee there are more posts than that about "fanart"^porn of at least twenty-five individual Pokémon, and we are definitely not making articles on that. AryKun (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did nominate them for deletion... but whatever. Different standards I guess. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've found that it's more likely for a change to go through if you wait awhile to let the furor die down. Not just deletions, too- there was a nastily contentious move discussion on a paleo article over moving to the scientific name over a news-given nickname. The first move discussion was bogged down with randos supporting the nickname, but the second a few months later only attracted a handful of paleo regulars.

  Personally, I was considering bringing this article to AfD in a few months myself when the fad was over. I suspect if you waited a year and brought those accidents to AfD, there'd be much less participation, especially if there was a lack of coverage after the initial outburst however apparently sustained it was. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Much of the above speaks to why I went with merge. Lots of topics are within the "not indiscriminate" scope but fail NOTNEWS, etc., and maintaining a summary of them in topical lists is much easier than having separate articles on them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  “we should make one on every random animal that has a viral Reddit post and a couple churnalistic articles spawned from that.” Heh, was that a Jorts_(cat) reference? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With respect, my impression is that you didn't follow Tater Tot's coverage or the interest taken in him very closely. You seem to have decided on your own that this is just a Facebook fad and not notable instead of actually taking into account the volume of news coverage, the people making art or murals based on the cat's life, etc. I am also not sure what you mean by the cat not "doing anything" - cats whether it's Tater Tot, Pot Roast, or Grumpy Cat generally do not "do anything" unless they are animal actors appearing in movies, or play a part in some dramatic news event like Harambe the Gorilla. Notability of an Internet celebrity animal is more likely to come from sustained exposure, and it's hard to argue that Tater is not getting sustained exposure, especially when you haven't given it enough time to see if the exposure persists over time or gives rise to new initiatives, new charities, other lasting effects. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the concept of "sustained exposure" either. As sad as it is, the cat passed away. All news articles about him (I have just checked) are a month old. There's no active reports (what is there to report about?) on him, and the only "exposure" is a Facebook group which is only posting photos of *other cats* for obvious reasons. Ladysif (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Speaking as someone who takes a general interest in celebrity cats and other celebrity animals, the global reach of Tater Tot's story, which appeared in a very large number of news outlets around the world and helped to bring attention to the plight of disabled or "special needs" foster animals, was unusual and definitely meets the notability criteria. Tater Tot is also continuing to have an impact after his death by promoting both the cause of disabled animals and general perseverance in the face of difficulties. If other "Internet celebrity cats" such as Pot Roast (cat) can have a Wiki article, then Tater Tot certainly qualifies also. At absolute minimum, the page should be kept for now and then if necessary revisited in several months or even a couple years, to see if there is some deletion criteria based on lack of lasting impact. Right now it appears the tide is going in the other direction and the impact on popular culture is actually increasing with time. TheBlinkster (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  for that matter, who is/was Pot Roast? I've never heard of them, but every time I turn around, I see Tater Tot. So... idk. Jane Heyer (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Almost every cat on the "cats of the internet" and "list of individual cats" page has a link to a seperate page about the cat, why is it any different for Tater Tot? I see people saying "but he only lived a month" as a way to write off him being a "fad" but he surely would have been a much larger piece of internet culture had he lived longer because he already had a GIGANTIC impact. His story has helped spotlight several other disabled kittens, most especially in the 57 thousand member group "tater tot and his spudbuds" which has helped multiple shelters get funding for their animals to be able to get medical care so he it still having an impact on the world. 2600:4041:1CA:4F00:5182:CF61:45FE:3093 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cant "edit to add" but if I could I would mention that if it absolutely HAS to be deleted it should be merged into "cats of the internet" because of the huge amount of news coverage. The amount of people showing out for this discussion page alone should make it notable enough for at the very very least an entry to cats of the internet 2600:4041:1CA:4F00:5182:CF61:45FE:3093 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t delete this. This legacy is still on going and the help and good he has done for many resecues and other stray cats and kittens is on going. It’s the tater tot effect. Keep going out of spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.17.181 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are a lot of random IPs popping up at the talk page of this afd today. I'm guessing some off-wiki canvassing has gone on? Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Kinda. There's some discussion of it on a private Facebook group. Daxsymbiote (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook group on at least two occasions now has attempted (or attempted to plan) edit wars on his page so it shouldn't really be surprising.Ladysif (talk)

• Keep per TheBlinkster: there is enough SIGCOV to justify the article being kept. There could be more coverage of this cat. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think Tater Tot would be best having an entry on the Cats and the Internet page. I understand that he made an impact, but I don't think it's appropriate to have an article for every kitten that goes viral. I've fostered kittens and I understand the impact that Tater Tot has had on some people and the visibility for disabled animal welfare. Considering the impact but also the short span of it, I think the merge is best. I do think some of the supporters of the page coming from Facebook need to be more respectful of Wikipedia and it's volunteers. This is not a personal attack on Tater Tot or disabled kittens or animal welfare. The people who are for deletion or merge are people who are just trying to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. If you don't have anything nice or constructive to say, please stop brigading. comment added by Daxsymbiote (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I understand how this could be looked at as simply a passing cat meme but a look at the sources indicates Tater Tot as a uniquely noteworthy cat. Kickysam49 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas do not delete the Tater Tot page. If has helped so many countless Babis get the card they need. And we need Tator Tot desperately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:284:8C71:B83E:A6A0:3D2E:4970 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC) • contribs) 15:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Tater Tot is more than just some internet fad. He has created a movement where people come together in a community online to help rescues and shelters, especially in a time they need it the most. This community focuses on helping disabled animals the most. After the pandemic, so many people gave up their pets they got during the pandemic and it has overwhelmed so much. The Tot has brought people together to take care of these creatures humans have stuck in a bad situation. Laulaugh
• Keep or Merge as Tater Tot the kitten may have been an internet fad, but there could possibly be more coverage of him. More importantly, Tater Tot the kitten brought the rescue Kitty CrusAIDe to the light and if there will not be more news of Tater Tot specifically, perhaps there will be more of the rescue. If this Wikipedia page doesn't meet guidelines, perhaps Tater Tot has a place on the Cats and the Internet page as Daxsymbiote said, or maybe a Wikipedia page discussing the rescue, Tater Tot and other popular animals from Kitty CrusAIDe, the owner, and more so Wikipedia does not grow overwhelmed with more submissions as this goes on. Tater Tot was more than an internet fad, however his Wikipedia page lacks most of his information about him, his story, the rescue, Ash, or anything at the moment; I recommend making a page for Kitty CrusAIDe and merging Tater Tot there or to the Cats and the Internet page as suggested above. --Slickster.x (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are free to create an article on Kitty CrusAIDe yourself if you want, Wikipedia is user-generated. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge As much as I love cats, the only reason why other internet cats have Wikipedia pages is because they have (or had) active presences - anyone can Google Tater Tot and find a plethora of news articles about him, but the fact of the matter is that he was a trend. His owner does not meet WP:NOTE standards either. As you can see above there are a number of contributions here from IP addresses that are not from people who understand how Wikipedia works. I see no issue with merging the article. Ladysif (talk)

This article must be kept alive. It is important for the future of feline care, not just the love of Tater Tot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.252.141.20 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Do not delete tater tot’s page. With all the nasty and ugly in the world, do you want to delete some thing that’s positive and cute? Tater tot’s page has brought unity to the rescue community and John attention to the plate of special-needs cats, all around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.7.6 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT TO CLOSER: Without commenting on their merit, there are more !votes posted to the talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tator tot cat is 100% a thing that a lot of people know about please keep this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.235.200.117 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, does not even achieves WP:SUSTAINED, WP:ONEEVENT, and notability, and here is WP:NOTNEWS. There could be thousands of kittens that die from random causes everyday and we aren't writing an entry for every one of them. It's very likely that once the "fire" of social media virality extinguishes itself, it will be forgotten, but we are left with another useless entry in Wikipedia (see what Wikipedia i‼ for). The argument about "the reach of a random kitten being global" is not sustained, because I didn't even know about of the existence of it until now in Wikipedia, and the acknoledgement of its existence was geographically limited to the region where this kitten lived, or at most the US. Suggested alternative: transfer to WikiNews. --Onwa (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Tater Tot was actually covered extensively, by major news stations throughout the US and internationally, as shown by Google news search, even though you or other individuals might not have seen the coverage. It was not a regional story or even a US only story. Search I did just now brought up articles from Business Insider, Sportskeeda, Hindustan Times, Daily Express, Fox News, Newsweek, Daily Mail, Sacramento Bee, and a number of television networks.TheBlinkster (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder if people are actually reading these NOT essays they are throwing around. For instance the full title of WP:ONEEVENT is "People notable for only one event" (emphasis mine) and has a three-prong test that fails. Similarly WP:NOTNEWS has four sub-points, Original reporting (does not apply); News reports giving examples of routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities (does not apply); Who's who (does not apply); Celebrity gossip and diary (might apply, except it specifically relates to human beings, and furthermore specifically relates to life trivia and not to the entirety of a subject). Something for the closer to consider. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.212.143 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As Bri notes, there are 45 comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tater Tot (cat). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One-off internet ephemera, with a heaping gob of animal-centric inspiration porn. Zaathras (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the multitude of overdramatic comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tater Tot (cat) and here, I have to agree on that inspiration porn bit. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenting on the the comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tater Tot (cat), a majority seem to be made by IP editors with few or no other edits outside this topic which to me would seem to suggest off wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry like others have said. Likely along with normal people who came here out of their own whim though are pretty emotional and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherguy54 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding on, most of the IP editors and some accounts who’ve made comments on this page seem to be SPAs too. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge into something similar to list of Internet Phenomena or celebrity cats. Agree with AryKun, ReyWas92, Ladysif, Candlish and most of the Delete & Merge comments. This article is based on a one-off Internet phenomena/fad of a cute disabled kitten who died and is solely famous for a one-off event, short term churnalism based on that event, and social media posts(such as the ones in the Facebook group a few dozen IP editors came from).   I like cats and animals but if every cat or animal that’s gone viral(even with RSes) for just one small event/fad were to be made into a Wiki article, there’d be hundreds of articles. The intersection between cats and culture and the internet is already well established and touched upon in two articles, Cats_and_the_Internet, Cultural_depictions_of_cats the former which could be merged to. This article does not warrant enough notability to be it’s own article. Also, based off reading this discussion I think that articles like Jorts_(cat) and Pot_Roast_(cat) based on largely non-notable one-off fads should be merged or deleted along with this one. Articles like Grumpy cat satisfy notability due to sustained coverage and interest for a long bit(similar to Doge) and impact on internet culture and memes; Tater tot does not.   Alternatively, this could be drafted for a while like Rorshacma said. Also, you IP editors from Facebook and the like should calm down. This discussion and proposal is not a personal attack on Tater Tot, he still has a legacy and impact outside this wiki page. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would be good if posters could focus more on the AFD arguments and less on personal criticism of/ comments about those who do not appear to be regular Wikipedia editors but chose to comment here or on a talk page anyway, probably because they're emotionally invested in the topic. People who do not regularly edit here, often because the technical aspects and processes involved (including this AFD process) are difficult for them to understand, nevertheless often still use Wiki and even contribute money to keep it operating. I'm sure the closer of this AFD will weight comments appropriately taking into account comment quality, context, user experience and all that. Meanwhile, please be cognizant of WP:BITE.TheBlinkster (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Advising newcomers and SPAs is not a personal attack or biting. I commented on them because they are so prominent on this page and on the talk page, and they could provide some good arguments regarding this AfD and wiki guidelines like notability, but my opinion is that most have not done that so far. I know some people are understandably quite emotionally invested in this topic(especially those from a facebook group about tater tot), but telling them to calm down so they can focus enough to provide some good discussion and collaboration on this proposal is not an attack. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2023 (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.