Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpongeBob SquarePants controversy

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 (and copyedit). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants controversy

Ooooh, controversy surrounding SpongeBob SquarePants! Has he been seeing some comely mermaid wench on the side? Does the show carry Satanic messages? Er, no. Actually this is more or less made up, as is evident from the unreliability ofthe sources. Only one item is properly sourced (if you allow Snopes as a reliable source), and there is more then enough room for that short sentence in the main article. Seriously, there is no significant controversy surrounding the rectangular yellow one. Just zis Guy you know? 11:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As silly as it sounds, I remember the satanic and other stuff being a big deal a while back - it was on basically every news program over and over. Not sure how much that related to the actual article, and it does need cleanup... RN 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Yes, it made headlines here too. I suggest we try an {{afd-cleanup}} first, perhaps send it to the Cleanup Task Force. Just because the claims of satanism are nonsense, doesn't mean we can throw out those claims or sources reporting them as unreliable. All we need is someone sourcing the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the entire thing gets an O RLY? from me. Is this "controversy" important or notable? Or large and diverse enough to justify a fork? I'd say a single para in the main article was enough. Just zis Guy you know? 11:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, the controversy itself was (unfortunately) quite widespread. Part of the problem with this is that even while it was going on I didn't really understand it much at all - it was really quite odd from what I remember. To give you an idea of how widespread it was, just the satanism stuff itself was mentioned weekly for almost an entire year on shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann as well as numerous mentions on other shows such as The O'Reilly Factor. RN 12:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. I definitely remember this being in the news. But this clearly needs some cleanup and verification. Heimstern Läufer 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and summerize - SpongeBob is NOT gay. This should be summerized on the SpongeBob SquarePants page. It should be short, and with a conclusion. The conclusion is that he is NOT gay. Perhaps we shall just go with what the CREATOR says, after all, Hillenburg DID create him. Wouldn't he know about SpongeBob's "sexual status?" This article doesn't need its own page. Summerize this article on the SpongeBob SquarePants page, which should be Summerize this article on the SpongeBob SquarePants page, which a short section. -AMK152 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup or Merge Snopes is a reliable source. --Kalmia 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Most of this article isn't about controversy that's real, it's about the innuendo and dirty jokes that WE, the viewers, see. The article even mentions that Hillenburg says SpongeBob isn't gay. That's all I need. Besides, we all know that he isn't. I have nothing against SpongeBob but we know that this show has had its fair share of controversy throughout its run. And for all those people who are obsessed with proving that "SpongeBob isn't gay": THESE ARE ONLY OBSERVATIONS THAT VIEWERS MAKE, NOT FACTUAL STATEMENTS. He's a cartoon character for Christ's sake, he can't be gay. Anyway, the article definatley needs cleanup though... - Doodoobutter 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, the article is a mess now, but I'm sure the topic needs an article. bbx 08:58, 4 September 2006 (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.