Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(The Painted Whore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete --cesarb 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Painted Whore (formerly (The Painted Whore)

Article is improperly formatted; also, title begins with an open parenthesis "("). Moreover, Google searches for "The Painted Whore" + Sarah, or + "Black Bishop", or any of the other cited characters in the entry come up with 0 hits. This is anonymous IP's first and only contribution. jglc | t | c 16:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Do you have to use fixable newbie problems like titles and formatting as reasons for deletion? Anyway, delete for lack of evidence that people would want to look it up. Kappa 17:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Nah, but I'm just listing facts for people to use as a basis; they can choose to ignore or accept them as foundation for a vote. My reasoning is that having the parenthesis in the title makes it, at the least, highly subject to needing to move to The Painted Whore. jglc | t | c 17:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Entry has been moved by user to Painted Whore. I still contend that it is nonencyclopaedic and unverified. jglc | t | c 17:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, Painted Whore is a copypaste, not a move. — Gwalla | Talk 17:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: My mistake. You are perfectly correct. jglc | t | c 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Fudge. And they've edited it too. Well, forget about merging page histories or fixing it up. Ambush Commander 17:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've merged the page history using temporary deletion and restoration. It's all at Painted Whore now. - Mgm|(talk) 18:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • MgM, are you going to create a new VfD page, or ought I to redirect the current link to this VfD talk page? jglc | t | c 18:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There being no Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Painted_Whore yet, I redirected the link on Painted Whore to point to this discussion. jglc | t | c 18:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I forgot to do that. Sorry. Mgm|(talk) 20:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • No problem; it's taken care of, either way. jglc | t | c 20:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no apparent Google hits, not listed on Amazon.com, probably not encyclopedic. --FCYTravis 19:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. --Etacar11 23:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Kappa, including noting that formatting, title, and anonymity of contributor are all irrelevant to VfD and should not be used as foundations for a vote. -- Jonel | Speak 03:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: My mistake. I'll keep that in mind; shouldn't jump on newbies. My apologies, all. jglc | t | c 05:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep 'JoJo 13:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)JoJo'
    • JoJo only has 47 edits. Half of them are on other articles (the other half are... VfD. Whaddya suspect?) Two welcome notices, which are points for JoJo, but also a warning against vandalism. Ambush Commander 14:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • And the pages this user has editted are all up for deletion, btw. --Etacar11 14:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep CzechPartisan Have you guys ever heard of Underground Publishing???
    • Note: CzechPartisan has 5 edits, all of them in the VfD section. Suspect Sock puppetry. Ambush Commander 14:28, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • And note: Even if the work in question was published by an underground company, it would still have to be notable in order to warrant inclusion. jglc | t | c 14:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 203.54.191.128 We should always encourage fringe art. Isn't that the essence of an open source medium, to be inclusive.
    • Anonymous IPs aren't allowed to vote Ambush Commander 14:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Where does it say that? Kappa 14:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Anonymous IP's are not allowed to vote; they are, however, allowed to contribute their comments for consideration. jglc | t | c 14:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. The actions of longhair et al violate the principle of equality that pervades the essence of open source philosophy. Discrimination is wrong. Jamesss
    • Note: Jamesss has 25 edits, 24 of them all in VfD and one on his user talk page. Suspect Sock puppetry. Ambush Commander 14:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fictitious fiction. --Habap 15:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not everything is on google you know. Keep- 'Freezer 09:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)Freezer'
  • KeepI'll side with that logic, need more proof than lack of google searchability and so on. Perhaps someone could mail the book distributors? Or ask for more info? Of course, you'll need to unblock the creators for that to work... 'TagTeam 10:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)TagTeam'
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.