This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2016. The result of the discussion was redirect to Kermit_the_Frog#Kermit_in_Internet_culture.

A fact from Tea Lizard appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 July 2016 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that some journalists have marked Good Morning America's incorrect labeling of Kermit the Frog as "Tea Lizard" an example of "cultural appropriation" and "black erasure"? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tea Lizard.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Internet culture This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles WikiProject Internet culture To-do: history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

This entry makes very little sense, and seems to assume a reader knows the pertinent facts, such as what a 'tea lizard' is, and why anyone would care.The article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:A19B:16ED:515C:82F9 ( talk) 13:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I concur with the IP. After reading the article, I still do not understand the topic being discussed. The New York quote meant to "summarize" the subject doesn't help either. Ruby 2010/ 2013 15:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

It didn't make a lot of sense to me either, but then I guess I'm not very hip. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 15:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Why is it tolerated that the author of this nonsensical article removed the deletion proposal? -- Nsda ( talk) 16:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Per WP:PROD it is allowed for involved editors to delete a PROD tag. With that said, I agree with the above that this article doesn't seem notable. If I understand it correctly, it's about a misidentification about a character in an internet meme. I'm not sure this is a battle I have time to fight now, but if someone else does, the next step is WP:AFD. Dave ( talk) 16:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree it should probably be deleted (or heavily abridged and merged) in accordance with WP:GNG (and common-sense). Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included" and it's hard to see any other convincing reason (beyond coverage) that would suggest that this needs an article.— Brigade Piron ( talk) 16:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I've nominated it for deletion. Let's see what people think. Kitfoxxe ( talk)

Easily one of the dumbest articles I've ever seen. Why was this featured on the frontage? I think it should be deleted altogether. 100.14.69.51 ( talk) 19:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply