Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeKnob SquareNuts

SpongeKnob SquareNuts

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't think this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, in my opinion. I don't think Bubbleblabber, which is cited five times, is a source reliable enough to provide notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and Sexuality and gender. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator) - Buzzfeed (in 2018, WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS), The Hollywood Reporter, and Esquire are all reliable sources that establish notability. I also don't see any reason to doubt the reliability of the HTF and Inside Hook sources, which are both interviews in print magazines. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a classic Buzzfeed listicle article would be WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, that would be WP:BUZZFEED. Is everything mentioned in a buzzfeed clickbait list notable? The article fails GNG as it doesn't address the topic in detail. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a "clickbait list" it serves as an opinion piece that provides reception and points towards notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the director's article. The refs only talk about the movie in passing while speaking of the director. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the BuzzFeed list article is not significant or from a reliable source, the Hollywood Reporter article is very just a few sentences long and not "in detail" per SIGCOV, and the Esquire article is more about the director and only mentions the parody three times in passing, and thus not "in detail" either. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: The HTF and InsideHook articles are also like the Esquire article in that they are simply interviews with the director and only tangentially mention the video. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Di. Juwan (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the BuzzFeed nor the Hollywood Reporter articles don’t make a compelling notability case. E_F⁵ 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Di briefly mentioned this discussion on the Wikimedia Discord server. They quickly deleted their message upon being asked to do so. Toadspike [Talk] 14:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all participants thus far except Darth Stabro (but including the nominator and myself) are active on that server. Toadspike [Talk] 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted before they accidently mentioned it. And it hasn't done any damage, the !votes disagree with each other. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am on the server, I was not online when the message was sent. E_F⁵ 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, it was not my intent to bring attention to the discussion or to canvas. I offhandedly mentioned it to express that I was annoyed at a page in queue for DYK being AFD'd, and when I realized that it could be interpreted badly I deleted the message. Again, I apologize. I will be more careful in the future. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It being in a queue for DYK is why it was nominated; see this comment on WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards delete, as I expressed at DYK – The Hollywood Reporter doesn't go into much depth, Hit the Floor and Esquire are mainly interviews, and BuzzFeed definitely doesn't count on this one. I might be convinced that The Hollywood Reporter, InsideHook, and Bubbleblabber make a very weak GNG pass, but the last two just aren't very weighty sources and if this is the best the article can be from those sources, then yeah, I'm not sure I see it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: given the coverage identified; also see https://mommyish.com/porn-parody/ https://www.cineserie.com/news/cinema/top-des-parodies-x-les-plus-droles-du-cinema-4163152/ etc. A ’decent’ article is possible so that redirect is not necessary and I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned briefly in the The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies and in the Bibliography of Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes mentioning an article in Hornet in 2013.-Mushy Yank. 00:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a blog and the second is just a listicle like Buzzfeed that doesn't have any detail. I don't think those really count, for the same reasons the other sources don't. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those ”listicles” include significant coverage and are no trivial mentions, so, yes, they really "count" imv. -Mushy Yank. 02:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" is defined as "directly and in detail", which a few passing sentences in a listicle isn't. It's direct, I suppose, but in The CineSerie list, half of the mention is just talking about the concept of parodying cartoons in this format; you don't actually learn anything about the video itself other than that it exists. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. You don’t learn everything about the video but you learn something, and not mereley that it exists, no, sorry but that is simply not true; you learn that it is a live-acton film, that it is bizarre, that it has weird sex scenes and some sequences are deemed ridiculous, you learn that it was meant to traumatize the child in you...., which the commentaror backs up with a quote. So, not trivial, significant, and the same goes for the other sources. -Mushy Yank. 02:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deeply unimpressed by source quality and coverage. The Hollywood Reporter is the best coverage, and it's still just a brief blurb

. Bubbleblabber is clearly not RS

. Hit the Floor is a low-quality group blog with a single sentence fragment of coverage outside the interview

. Inside Hook, if it's even RS, is still a trivial one-sentence mention

. Esquire coverage is exclusively in an interview

. Instagram is worthless

. BuzzFeed is a non-RS listicle

. Mommyish is blatantly not RS, why even link it

. Cineserie is also not RS (byline is just "Hatman")—at best it's tabloid junk "edited" by people whose professional journalism credentials are unverifiable—and anyway is just barely three sentences in a listicle, very far from SIGCOV

. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed not RS, how? Bubbleblabber, not reliable, ”clearly”, why? For the rest, the sources you indicate as just a blurb, just a listicle, and so on address the subject in what are not trivial mentions, some being of lesser quality than other. As to ’why even list it”, read my comment and WP:OR and you’ll know. -Mushy Yank. 04:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By which Mushy Yank means they have added references to sugarcookie.xxx (!), cartoonbrew.com, and the Daily Beast. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, Mushy Yank also says that you’re most welcome! -Mushy Yank. 12:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For the record, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Cartoon Brew and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Is The Daily Beast a reliable source -Mushy Yank. 12:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That Cartoon Brew discussion doesn't look like an unambiguous endorsement of that website's reliability to me... Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lee Roy Myers. JoelleJay's breakdown of the sources looks correct. The Hollywood Reporter article is the best source right now. Everything else is primary or marginally unreliable at best, not enough to meet WP:GNG. hinnk (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]