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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Fried Cruelty.com[edit]

Delete. Duly covered publicity stunt. Nothing more to say about the person, coverage is feeble. This is not notability.- CrazyRussian talk/email 15:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn per improved version. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the external link says, "What's in a name?" --Richhoncho 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Finger-lickin' Delete as flunking web guidelines. Add a side of slaw. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable personality involved in notable news story covered in major publications. Why is everybody saying "non-notable"? Please defend that statement. 36,000+ Google hits, coverage in major publications (as stated in article). PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't what you're talking about. 55 Google hits for both him and the website combined, since they share the name. Nothing notable about this person except the publicity stunt he made. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what I'm talkin' 'bout! PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. 500+ hits for the website. But the guy's name is spelled with spaces, so my earlier google results stand. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you and I both know that the terms are interchangeable, that both search terms are on the same topic. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WTF? Did you just call me "lazy, snobby, or willfully ignorant"? - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. I just pointed you towards an essay regarding the topic of "willful ignorance," only because to think of the two search terms as completely unrelated would be against common sense. I would never intentionally attack a fellow editor such as yourself. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Note: PT is the creator of the above referenced essay. AdamBiswanger1 01:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Almost 1,000 hits for "Chris Garnett" + "peta". PT ^(s-s-s-s) 05:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nn notable, fails WP:WEB.--John Lake 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. -PresN 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Desperate attention-seeking in which Wikipedia should not play a part. I don't even think a merge with PETA is worthwhile, though I wouldn't oppose it either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable PETA publicity stunt. Fails WP:BIO, not WP:WEB, because this is sadly this guy's legal name. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 05:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Because they are attempts to attract attention, publicity stunts should face even higher notability hurdles. This one isn't good enough. Smerdis of Tlön 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Please point out part of Wiki policy that states publicity stunts are automatically not notable or are held to higher scruitny. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 05:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment note to closing sysop: the following votes were cast after the article was substantially improved. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a publicity stunt, but not one directed at Wikipedia. It's been picked up by the mainstream media, and he's been interviewed on television. That makes him notable enough, and it gives us third-party sources. There are therefore no grounds within the policy for deletion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep. As ridiculous a publicity stunt as it is, it did make the mainstream media. Rockpocket 07:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep, seeing as he really doesn't violate any policies (the confusing thing is that he's a person and not the website itself, and falls under WP:BIO). The sources in the article show that, while I don't really agree with it, he does meet WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Many major media outlets have reported/mentioned him. The article is succinct and well sourced. Jean-Philippe 10:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the straight application of policies here is effective 99% of the time, but that does not mean that users can't take into account certain equitable considerations. For example, it is well-known that most captured murderers and rapists get a fair amount of newspaper coverage and technically meet WP:BIO, and there's a unspoken convention here not to reward them with an article unless truly notable. Same for self-generated publicity stunts targeted at the media and duly picked up by them - several editors, myself included, have a higher standard of tolerance for these article, precisely as Smerdis of Tlön has stated. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO - The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. (Fail) Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office or members of a national, state or provincial legislature. (Fail) Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage (Fail) Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers. (Fail) Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league... (Fail) Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions (Fail) Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work (Fail) Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (Fail) Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events (Fail) The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Fail). (clarification: stories about an otherwise unnotable person changing their name are trivial) --DaveG12345 22:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article has been much improved, and nominator has withdrawn. Yamaguchi先生 17:57, 13 July 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.