Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Plankton Pictures

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 merge to Stephen Hillenburg. Sandstein 12:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

United Plankton Pictures

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

United Plankton Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The company that made SpongeBob SquarePants, a notable subject, is itself not notable because notability is not inherited. Other than that, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Lordtobi (✉) 10:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Delete per nom, although it's SpongeBob, not SpongBob. Fixed it for you. Remagoxer (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The article is all about SpongeBob SquarePants. A mention of the production company could be added to the main article but there's nothing in here to justify a stand alone article and searches don't find anything significant that's not related to SpongeBob.. Neiltonks (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I'm always uncomfortable with these type of nominations that are filed days after an associated subject dies. The sourcing here is not problematic in the least and it looks like an average production company article. Nate • (chatter) 05:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Mrschimpf, the article wasn't notable even prior to Hillenburg's death, but we can be pretty much certain that it will stay unnotable. The sourcing here is problematic because the only source used for information about the subject is an extract from California's SoS to source the incorporation date of the company. We do not even have any source saying that Hillenburg founded the company (that's just trainspotting). Lordtobi (✉) 15:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as the article already has references that show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  Atlantic306, where do you see significant coverage? There is one database entry for the incorporation date, and the other sources justify list entries. Exactly zero sources discuss the topic itself in any way. This is not significant coverage. For full disclosure, the article formerly hosted one additional sentence about the United Plankton Charitable Trust, which was also founded by Hillenburg but is unconnected to the production company; the sentence has since been removed. Lordtobi (✉) 15:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • It is significant coverage of the company's products but more coverage of the workings of the company would be good Atlantic306 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

    Atlantic306, exactly, but there is no such coverage out there (otherwise I would have long added it), which is why it fails WP:GNG. Good coverage of its products as means of keeping this article is inherited notability, which does not exist. Lordtobi (✉) 15:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:DIRECTORY, and as it stands the article is just a directory and appears unlikely to be possible to advance beyond that. NoCOBOL (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to (probably) Stephen Hillenburg. There is little information here that is not already in the articles about Stephen Hillenburg and SpongeBob SquarePants - the exact date of incorporation is probably the main new information. There is one reference which is not included in either of the main articles, which is actually not about the production company but about the charity which shares its name, the United Plankton Charitable Trust - it would be good to include info about that in the Hillenburg article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Stephen Hillenburg - The article itself is limited in new information, but new information is there. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Merge any relevant info to Stephen Hillenburg HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Stephen Hillenburg. A functional WP:ATD-M that could improve the suggested merge target article a bit. This title is also a likely search term; see WP:ATD-R for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge to Stephen Hillenburg. It's a likely search term, although it offers very little information which is already provided by other articles especially the target. — Mediran [talk] 14:10, 16 December 2018 (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.