Complaining: PETA

PETA. I just locked it and cut all the examples because it was being used to complain about the Real Life organization, not discuss its applicability to media. Is there any valid reason to have this article? 18 wicks and 47 inbounds is not a lot, and without examples it's just two sentences — a stub.

Edited to add: Fictional depictions of PETA as Well Intentioned Extremists are covered under the Animal Wrongs Group trope.

edited 10th Apr '12 3:13:45 PM by Fighteer

Before I make a statement one way or the other, can you post the article in its previous form?

You can get it from the history, but okay, give me two seconds...

That's after someone cleaned off Well-Intentioned Extremist and Hero Antagonist.

edited 10th Apr '12 2:50:37 PM by Fighteer

Its in the history, its been picked apart by many different edits so its probably impossible to rebuild back in its original form.... but it was full of Take That! s and crap.

edited 10th Apr '12 2:50:38 PM by Raso

Cutlist. It seems pointless.

Only 2 sentences left, and nothing else. Might as well get rid of it, or merge it.

Thanks. Based on what was just posted and, now having looked over the history, I can place my vote for nuking the page.

I favor the nuke. I have no love whatsoever for the group's practices (and this is putting it lightly), yet without sufficient fictional portrayals (already covered through Animal Wrongs Group), it doesn't make this really worth the keeping. It's not for a wiki covering media portrayals to judge.

edited 10th Apr '12 3:02:17 PM by EarlOfSandvich

I'd cut it. The real world is just going to attract bile since it's controversal.

Well, I see overwhelming consensus in the early votes, but for procedure's sake I'll leave this up at least 24 hours.

Like PETA themselves, this article seems pointless and will do more harm than good.

Does PETA show up in media?

I know that World Of Warcraft did a spoof on them with "Druids for the Ethical and Humane Treatment of Animals" aka D.E.H.T.A. the "radical portion of the Cenarion Expedition" who goes around killing anyone who killed an animal in the zone and who's quests deal with slaughtering hunters.

Fictional portrayals of PETA almost always link to Animal Wrongs Group. We have a trope specifically for that. There's no need for an article on the organization themselves, unless it's a Useful Notes, and what do we have to talk about that isn't already covered in AWG or can be looked up on Wikipedia?

Since spoofs are already covered under Animal Wrongs Group, I must conclude that PETA is neither a work nor a trope, so that makes me wonder what it's doing on this wiki.

Agree with cutting it.

Agreed.

Kaiser's comment wins. I vote cut it.

Cut it. Pointless complaining aside, it's redundant with Animal Wrongs Group around.

Worth adding to the Permanent Red Link Club when it's locked?

edited 10th Apr '12 3:34:20 PM by SNDL

The only part of this page that could be something else than complaining is redundant with Animal Wrongs Group. Cut it.

Kaiser wins the thread. Well done, sir.

I don't think we need to put it in the Permanent Red Link Club. It's not all that controversial around here (i.e. it doesn't attract tons of edit warring or the like). It's just an easy target to pile on. If people try to repeatedly recreate it or the like, then we can throw it in there.

I'm not going to fall into the trap of declaring PETA itself valueless; they have a message even if it's delivered in the worst possible ways. That said, if the article is cut it will remain locked automatically.

If people try to repeatedly recreate it or the like, then we can throw it in there.

Cut pages are locked automatically. By adding it into the PRLC, we ensure that no one makes a YKTTW about the company either. Someone had wanted to propose an Uwe Boll page, despite that page already being a member of the PRLC.

If that's the case, then should we consider reworking the article into a Useful Note?

edited 10th Apr '12 5:08:40 PM by Komodin

It's already under Useful Notes index. Major editing required in that case?

edited 10th Apr '12 5:19:16 PM by spacemarine50

I'm not sure that rewriting it as Useful Notes is going to help — PETA does feature in fiction but it's always, always as an Animal Wrongs Group.

If someone wants to try to create a writeup that frames it as a Useful Notes, doesn't copy directly from Wikipedia, and is neutral in tone, go ahead. The Main article still needs a chop-chop, though.

edited 11th Apr '12 6:55:43 AM by Fighteer