Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survival of the Idiots


 * 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 redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. Daniel (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Survival of the Idiots

 * – ( View AfD View log )

ALLPLOT episode article with no chance of passing GNG. Also, the plot is copied from the fandom wiki. Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Kingsif's assessment of the article was true one month ago, when it was PROD'ed originally. However, I have since improved the article to make it pass through standards. The article is far from WP:ALLPLOT. I encourage everyone to improve the article.-- Kieran207  talk  03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, yes, IMDb user reviews. Read WP:GNG, please. When the only content of substance is plot, it's basically ALLPLOT, anyway. There's no sources to improve it with, or I'm sure you'd have and added them all. Give it up, dude. Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been trying to get this article deleted for almost one month. And although your opinion hasn't changed, the article has. The article now has more sourcing, more than just the plot, and indication of importance. And despite your opinion, the article continues to show large improvements. Few of your claims against this article hold up. "The plot was copied from fandom wiki" So? The plot for Friend or Foe is also copied from the Fandom wiki, Go ahead and nominate that one for deletion will ya? And i'm sure the article passes GNG, it might not overachieve it, but it passes it.-- Kieran207  talk  20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Er, no. I waited a month to see if it improved, it's not like I've been commenting on the talkpage every day that it should go. The article has changed, but it doesn't meet GNG. It has refs to confirm the episode 1. exists, 2. aired on TV, 3. was released on a season DVD. None of these confer notability. It then has refs to say it has an IMDb score, and appears on an IMDb fan list. Please see IMDBREF as to why those are unacceptable. There are then 2 refs from media sources that have ranked all Spongebob episodes; this is basically, again, saying "this exists" (in this case, per INDISCRIMINATE). When your article's best source is Screen Rant, there's a problem. The most recent additions are three sentences that wildly misrepresent the coverage in their sources: The episode is perhaps most commonly remembered for the "I'm Dirty Dan!" line, which is considered to be one of the show's most iconic lines. The "I'm Dirty Dan!" line also has become a large Meme in popular culture. Most notably during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. - the sources for the first sentence say that this line in the episode is memorable, when discussing, again, all of Spongebob. The source for second and third just includes this line on an indiscriminate list of Hurrican Sandy memes: so the second sentence is unsourced and the third says "notable" when the source doesn't reflect that. There's also no reason that such coverage couldn't be given at a "Spongebob memes" article or section. The fact is, this episode has no coverage that is more than a passing mention, and even only gets a passing mention in three RS's. And that's clearly scraping the barrel. If you think that meets GNG then I encourage you to stop creating articles. The mention of copying the plot from fandom wiki is because, with no other coverage, we are basically hosting something that is suitably covered there. Just let people use fandom wiki for episode details. Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Are you proposing for the article to be deleted due to GNG concerns, or a redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes? It's fine to be concerned about the topic's notability, but you are not clear with your nomination rationale. It should be one, or the other. Haleth (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be both: GNG concerns that would have it deleted, but since there's an episode list we might as well redirect the title. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I added some more citations,see if it helps.-- Kieran207  talk  15:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I helped by doing excessive cleanup to the plot; I agree that this article consists almost entirely of it.66.190.244.82 (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. There are not sources with SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  02:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. There's not enough references to consider the episode 'notable' in anyway. AlexField290 (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2021 (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.