Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behind Closed Doors (book)

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Behind Closed Doors (book)[edit]

[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)

Behind Closed Doors is not something that is needs an article. Every animated production has drawings like the ones seen in this book. Anything between Popeye to Rugrats has had vile pictures drawn by staff, this is just another to add to the pile. Not only is it unncessary, but it also lacks sufficient documentation. Only one reference to this book (might I add without any details) has been discovered that predates the book's leak by YouTuber LSuperSonicQ. Every other reference is written about that video, and no new information comes from them because of it. We don't know enough about this book to be given proper coverage, and again, even if it did, it does not stand out from any of the other books and artwork of its nature. With this logic, the Rugrats storyboard jam "Incredible" (which is of a very similar nature and includes vile drawings of children's characters) should also have an article. This is only been given social significance due to its falsified popularity online, and in reality has no actual historical significance outside of any other animated production. Ziggycashmere (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Comics and animation, and Sexuality and gender. • Gene93k (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD rationale does not make sense, "other stuff exists" isn't relevant, if something has coverage that meets GNG it doesn't matter if its one of a thousand similar works.★Trekker (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seconding StarTrekker's comment, several reliable sources have covered Behind Closed Doors. CJ-Moki (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with questions how does the recency of coverage and/or the source of the release affect something if it is covered in reliable sources? In terms of the former surely it isn't our job to decide what is a flash in the pan that will be forgotten about in 3 months time and what might become - for want of a better term for a book of dirty cartoons - a lasting point of interest? I do agree with StarTrekker that the likelihood that most other shows also have such books made by the staff somehow makes this one non-notable; follow that line to its' logical end and it's "why bother having an article on Pelé when there are loads of footballers?". If Behind Closed Doors sparks off some weird slew of animator-made porn books getting notable coverage, well I guess Wikipedia would cover them too. But that's a theoretical situation, and as it stands this one seems to have for whatever reason attracted reliable reportage. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think the deletion rationale is sufficiently focussed on policy. The broad question of whether this needs an article is an interesting one. I'd be inclined to agree that this kind of information could be placed in the Spongebob article itself, except in this case that might be to the detriment of that article. Should the information be covered at all? That is a matter of coverage in secondary sources, and while the secondary coverage here is not extensive, I think it crosses the line for independence, reliability and in multiple sources. I also cannot see an argument that it does not meet the significance threshold. The article itself is not great, and a rewrite, perhaps a move would all be possible, but those are not really AfD matters. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. We usually require sustained coverage by reliable sources under our notability policy; a short burst of news coverage is generally not enough to meet this requirement. With one exception, all of the sources I've found covering this article are pop-culture grade sources published in the four days following LSuperSonicQ's video. While there is a 2012 Hogan's Alley interview in which Osborne discussed Behind Closed Doors in some detail, Hogan's Alley did not provide any information on the book or even directly ask about it. This interview is a purely primary source from someone involved in the creation of SpongeBob/this book. As such, it does not contribute to notability. Given the lack of sustained coverage, I believe that this article should be deleted (I'm also fine with merging or perhaps transwiki-ing to a more SpongeBob/lost media centric wiki). Note that I did not take the existence/non-existence of similar articles or the perceived need for this article to exist into account as neither of these are relevant to notability. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough sourcing to satisfy me that the subject is notable. It's a little disturbing, but WP:NOTCENSORED. I appreciate Ziggycashmere's embracing the subjective nature of this filing. My answer is different from Z's but "Do we need this article?" is a valid question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2023 (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.