Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants)

Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants)

Not notable enough in and of itself. Plenty of content already at Patrick_Star#Patrick_Star Ged UK (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The characters of Lost (TV series), Desperate Housewives, and numerous other TV shows have pages; the characters of novels (The Lord of the Rings, A Series of Unfortunate Events, etc., etc.) have pages; the characters of radio programs (Adventures in Odyssey, The Lone Ranger, etc.) have pages; how is this less encyclopedic? — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 10:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because they haven't been cleaned up yet, and/or because they already demonstrate notability and/or could easily demonstrate notability. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Note to The Man in Question - per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS other stuff exists shouldn't be used as reason for deletion or for keeping articles. In this case though Patrick is a main character of the show appearing in a majority of episodes I can think of and I think probably qualifies as notable because of that. The article does need cleanup and it needs some reliable 3rd party sourcing from somewhere but, isn't an outright delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard keep: notable enough for its own article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article consists solely of plot details, is wholly lacking reliable sourcing, with no evidence of notability. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patrick is a notable character in his own right. --Ecoleetage (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the list of characters page. As an editor who's tried expanding the SpongeBob characters article, I've found that there's not really enough sources out there to justify a separate article at this point. Same for the Squidward article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As probably the second most important character in the very popular TV series, I do not believe it should be deleted. --Hamster X (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pd_THOR. It fails WP:N, and is unsourced. GreenJoe 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable popular culture character. Even a quick Google News and Books search shows an absolute tidal wave of potential sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Patrick Star was redirected to List of SpongeBob SquarePants characters in December 2007, and starting a new article to circumvent redirection is not the solution (I assume this wasn't done maliciously). The character is already described in detail at the LoC, and the article should not be recreated as a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. Redirection or deletion will serve until then. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no reliable sources about the article topic to pass WP:NOTE (or WP:FICT if you will). – sgeureka ^t•c 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted by sgeureka, the main Patrick article was redirected months ago. This should be speedily closed, and any attempts to bring the Patrick article back be discussed on that talk page, not here. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - When Patrick Star was redirected, it was protected to stop recreation without out-of-universe notability. The new article, Patrick (SpongeBob SquarePants), whether by accident or design, circumvents this discussion. Oh, and I see no indication of real world notability either. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a main character in a hit show, it does not need to be redirected ethier, he is his own character. — Mike T Boss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. This is not an occasionally recurring character but the main character's best friend and a major, notable character in his own right. I admit to watching the show every so often and I have never seen an episode without Patrick. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a speedy keep reason. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is ~~the~~ a main character on the show. article passes WP:FICT as it is covered in reliable sources Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? And which ones would those be? seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FWIW, a Google search of "Patrick Star" turns up more than 13,000,000 Google hits. He has verifiable third-party references, he is a major character on a major television presentation, seems to pass WP:FICT (after an admittedly cursory glance) and, thankfully, is not a Pokemon, on which we seem to have articles by the truckload. Ditto characters in every anime and manga on the planet. If this were one of the secondary or tertiary characters, I'd agree that a redirect is in order. This character is in every episode I have ever seen. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming there are reliable, third-party sources that grant notability is not the same as providing them. If this character is as integral and notable as you so claim, these sources should be bountiful. Articles need out of universe notability, not in universe notability to remain as an article. seresin ( ¡? ) 08:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With thirteen million Googles, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. :) I'll add a couple. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, including Nickelodeon's sites for North America and Asia, an elaborate fansite at [1] and even an Amazon.com link to a Beanie Baby version of the character. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: 8,320,000 Google image hits and was co-star (no pun intended) of a major motion picture as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it meets notability requirements.Oroso (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. especially with the reliable sources recently added. Ben1283 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]