Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Bikini Bottom


 * 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. This is a Secret account 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

List of places in Bikini Bottom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivial, unsourced, in-universe fancruft; probably no outside sources to improve it to standards for articles about fiction.  Crazy Legs  KC  04:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge This nomination is speculative Cruftcruft supported only by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Myself, I have never seen this show but understand that it is very notable.  Bikini Bottom seems to be the main setting and so merits an article of this sort.  It only took a few moments to find a mainstream reference in the NYT - there are those who just don't get it.  I now see that there is a main article for Bikini Bottom - perhaps this material could be merged into it and the list made into a redirect.  Peremptory deletion is not appropriate.Colonel Warden 07:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The notability of the show does not make every minor aspect of the show notable. The article is fancruft/listcruft, composed entirely of unsourced, in-universe trivia. • 97198  talk  08:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable list. There are articles about the show - the show is notable.  But that does not make this list notable.  There are no multiple non trivial sources which describe all this. Obina 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Since there's an article on Bikini Bottom (as there is in every encyclopedia, of course), there's no reason that this bit of tartar sauce can't be placed there. Mandsford 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry to be a crab, but yes there is a reason that this should not be shell-ved there - it would make that article worse. Useless trivia makes Wikipedia worse. Obina 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge I find it very disturbing that the word useless is being thrown around so lightly. The whole reason anyone can edit here is to make articles like this possible. The day Wikipedia becomes just another academic encyclopedia is the day that Wikipedia died. You take away articles about fringe culture, "fancruft", etc., you're turning this site into another elitist encyclopedia. I suggest you read about ignore all rules and don't climb to the top of the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. Stop taking yourselves so seriously and quit moving to delete legitimate articles just because of notability issues. Sorry if I'm being to personal, but this is important. 72.173.20.164 02:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not trying to sock puppet or anything... I just didn't realize I wasn't signed in. The previous vote was mine. Hagan jared 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not trying to make "just another academic/elitist encyclopedia." If we were, then all (or most) of the articles we have about television shows and movies would be deleted. However, it is important that we have notability guidelines and delete non-notable articles. If we didn't, Wikipedia would become completely unmaintainable (and it's already pretty hard to maintain as it is). See WP:EVERYTHING. -- Crazy Legs  KC  02:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand everything isn't available for inclusion, but to me a lot of notability concerns are carping the material. I think we should try to be as inclusive as possible. This information is useful. Quality is important and accuracy is paramount, but the quantity and breadth of WP is what makes it worth anything. The non-notable arcana is what makes WP what it is. A person can get information here that they just can't find easily anywhere else. This particular article is a case in point. The locations clearly provide useful information about the show. Hagan jared 03:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry if my attempt at humor led me to use language wrongly. But note we are not suggesting we delete Bikini Bottom, just this article. And that's because notability can't flow down hill forever.  From Sponge Bob to Bikini Bottom, to Places in Bikini Bottom, to (can't say for WP:BEANS).  And we want the Bikini Bottom article to be good. And while we hear that you think this list is useful, the point is, that 'useful' is not a reason to keep or wikipedia could become a phonebook/facebook/blog site.Obina 20:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, information is trivial at best. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:43, 3 November 2007 (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.