Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikini Bottom (setting)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Bottom (setting)[edit]

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

Challenged deletion. AfD requested on my talk page as previous discussion was a while ago. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, Surely secondary reliable sources can be found. Marcus Qwertyus 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants#Setting. This article is much like the article that was merged per the previous AFD (oldid); just like that article, this does not meet the general notability guideline as it is not discussed in-depth by reliable secondary sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per previous merge consensus, content on this setting was already merged from Bikini Bottom (which remains a redirect) into the SpongeBob article. I'm curious how a good-faith recreation of the merged article at a new (and less intuitive) name happened. Jclemens (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gaming consensus by re-creating this article. Consensus can change but the fact that they didn't work with the original Bikini Bottom article strikes me as WP:GAMEing the system, although it's possible it was a good faith accident. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There already was consensus not to have a separate article, so the topic shouldn't have a new article under a new name. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.