This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Editor "A Link to the Past" questions the notability of Larry the Lobster, saying the "article is not long enough" and that [I] "cannot just remove [his/her] template." I have countered by pointing out that the subject has been discussed in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, and changed national telecommunications policy since the early 1980s. S/he has never responded. S/he has never posted on the discussion page. Please, Mr./Ms. "Link to the Past," tell us why you think the article needs to be longer, and why you think these sources, and the others cited, are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Also, Mr/Ms. "Link to the Past," please share why you think other editors can not remove a notability template. Do you believe that only the editor who inserts the template in the first place is allowed to remove it? Uucp 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll just copy the general notability guidelines here:
== General notability guideline ==
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.
"Sources" should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article.
So, discussion on which points are covered? Bladestorm 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We have coverage from The Wall Street Journal,Washington Post,USA Today, and other sources, all of which are reliable secondary sources, independent of Saturday Night Live. These articles have been appearing over a period of 25 years. As noted in the text of the article, Larry the Lobster has also led to a change in national telecommunications policy at U.S. television networks, for the last 25 years. That the articles in question meet the tests listed above will in most cases be clear from the citations alone, though "A Link to the Past" may want additional proof of the fact that these articles deal with the subject "directly and in detail," in which case I am glad to provide copies to prove the point. It seems to me that this article sails through the notability test. Uucp 21:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Notability seems established to me. The article length is fine to. It would be nice to have the episode number and air date, perhaps the skit's writer, if known. Was the "900" number toll free? It'd be great to have a screen grab, too.
Actually it's a nice little article. --Knulclunk 04:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The USA Today article from the late 1980s implies that it was a "pay for" call but does not say so explicitly. If I find any additional information, I'll add it. Uucp 12:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
So far, this discussion's been up for two days, with no counter-arguments made. Link's been on at least a couple times during that time, but let's give him a bit more time.
If no arguments against notability have been made after another day, I don't see a problem with removing the tag. (But it should stay up until then so people can know that it is currently still disputed) Bladestorm 18:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the tag. If anybody believes it should be reinstated, please discuss your reasoning here on the talk page first.- Hal Raglan 16:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Relisting is unlikely to produce a consensus to move, there is weak support only and significant opposition. Andrewa (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This article should be moved to the Larry article space with a note pointing people looking for the (redirected) Spongebob character to the Spongebob character list. Otto4711 (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose How is a character than only appeared in 1 SNL sketch more notable than a regular character from one of the most popular childrens cartoons in the world? TJSpyke 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability isn't the issue. The issue is that this Larry has an article and the other Larry is a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Mild support, but more because theres only two articles, so a "for the spongebob character, see..." redirect link can go at the top of the SNL page. From Google I suspect the Spongebob character is more "looked for", and it had its own article until merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk • contribs) 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. As I understand things, it is irrelevant whether there is actually a page titled for the other Larry. Larry from Spongebob is a valid concept and is currently more well-known than the SNL sketch. Sam Staton (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly does a note directing those interested in the Spongebob character to the character list not sufficient? As I understand it, disambiguation pages that point to only one named article shouldn't even exist. Otto4711 (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. The third item on the dab page eliminated the WP:TWODABS suggestion, and I've tweaked the Larry the Lobster hatnote. Miniapolis 14:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like you're making a WP:RECENTISM argument. If the SpongeBob character, who is very unlikely to have its own article, is more notable than the SNL "character," perhaps the latter should just be merged away. But would we really want a dab page to two list items? Yikes. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I see no dominance of the SNL thing (google), and its relevance will continue to fall as it gets older, so the relevance of the SNL skit is itself just RECENTISM, since its long term significance seems to be dwindling. Therefore, with no significant topic, and the cartoon character rising in prominence relative to the SNL skit because of relative age, a disambiguation page is best. There are several other real lobsters with press coverage called "Larry the Lobster" (ie, ) so we might find another one worthy of an article (say because the specimen is especially large or old, or otherwise unique, if someone were to want to create a third target. Either way, I don't see the primary topic being the SNL bit, and you don't see it being SpongeBob (and neither do I), so a disambiguation page is best. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Support per nom. The SpongeBob character is an uncited list item while the SNL skit has a standalone article. Also delete the DAB page per WP:TWODABS and use a hatnote to guide readers to the SpongeBob character. In the end, the reader looking for the SpongeBob character will only have to click once whether there is a DAB page or not. — AjaxSmack 01:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Weak support per WP:TWODABS; I'm frankly not convinced that more people are seeking the SNL topic vs. the Spongebob, but it makes sense to put one of them at the main title, and it makes more sense to put the one that has the separate article at that title. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment it's no longer 2dab, since there's something in Australia with an alternate name "Larry the Lobster". -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Support, hatnote will do. LCS check (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I'd never even heard of the SNL lobster until recently. Call me crazy, but IMO the SpongeBob character is more notable. Unreal7 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. I hadn't heard of either of these until this RM but it seems pretty obvious to me that a subject with a standalone article is the primary topic over a subject that is just mentioned in a list. Jenks24 (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Leave as is - could easily make counter arguments that the cartoon is international, SNL is notable only to men in their forties in US and Canada. But it's more that anyone wanting to find the SNL skit in the forest of Sponge Bob material on the web is probably better off being able to see the "(Saturday Night Live)" very clearly in Google result header. The existence of a third Larry the Lobster in Lonely Planet Central Australia removes the rest of the argument. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - per disambiguation page and In ictu oculi. No point on making a very obscure character of the same name a primary topic anymore. In fact, I never watch Saturday Night Live anymore. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. As this article is the only one on Wiki titled "Larry the Lobster," this is basically another article-vs-DAB RM. Are readers seeking articles, or are they seeking DABs? As for the cartoon character, we can deal with that issue after someone writes an article about it. The current setup goes against WP:TWODABS. The DAB doesn't even have two valid entries as one is just a redirect to an item on a list. Kauffner (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Yikes, this is a mess! Since there is only one article named "Larry the Lobsters" and the others are effectively redirects or nick-names. I would suggest using a hat note for both the the two alternatives. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Still support per arguments immediately above. — AjaxSmack 00:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.