Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coq Roq

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 04:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coq Roq

non-notable viral marketing spam. JDoorjam 23:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I do worry that describing specific viral marketing campaigns is exactly the same as participating in them. Anyway, not notable Sliggy 23:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete made the news today because Slipknot is sueing them (BK) or something like that. But I'm not sure it is really notable. Most of this kind of thing is quickly forgotten. --Etacar11 00:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no reason to suppose that this viral campaign is any more interesting than any other. -Splash 03:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I created the article because I thought it was notable, and you know, Subservient Chicken has its own page as well. Maybe merge it, since they're both based on the BK chicken character? --WikiFan04^{Talk 2:58, 19 Aug 2005 (CDT)}
  • Then why did you nominate Subervient Chicken for deletion? Are you trying to make a POINT? -- JamesTeterenko 17:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Coq Roq appears poised to be a breakout campaign in the tradition of a "Where's the Beef?" Blah blah blah Not A Crystal Ball but hey, I think it's funny. Needs more work, though. -HX
• Delete. Importance not established. -- JamesTeterenko 17:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Adding Content. I found this page lacking content and I am adding to it and cleaning it up. --Klander Brigade 15:28 19 August 2005 (EST)
• Delete. No constructive purpose, uninteresting and, as an above user said, lacks Importance. D-Katana
• Keep Diggit. SchmuckyTheCat 05:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What's the point of deleting this article? Stoph 00:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. No, James, I put Subservient Chicken on VfD because I don't believe it is NOTABLE! And Stoph, I agree with you. WikiFan04^{Talk 2:49, 21 Aug 2005 (CDT)}
• Keep I'm researching the behaviour of online brands and most of the information I can find on this is within paid for marketing journals - surely the point of wiki is to get this information to everyone? (Unsigned vote by 82.45.254.131 (talk • contribs), third edit)
• Keep I don't understand how major, semi-innovative national marketing campaigns of multi-billion dollar corporations aren't notable. RADICALBENDER★ 19:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Those new chicken fingers are tasty. --Boycottthecaf 23:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I mean, yeah, okay, it's notable, barely, but I get the feeling that we'd be better off merging this article with Subservient Chicken and other examples of viral marketing. --T-Boy 11:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP Not notable! Are you kidding me?!?! This is part of a nation wide ad campaign! Most people have heard about Coq Roq, especially since the law suit. Its just as important as any of the other fictional band articles on Wikipedia.--The_stuart 14:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I've seen and didn't know what it was about, then came across it from a link on List of YTMND fads, because of the article, I know now about Burger King getting sued, which I didn't know until I read this article.. --Saint-Paddy 03:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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.