Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooker with a heart of gold


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep.    Sandstein   19:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hooker with a heart of gold

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article appears to be WP:OR and lacks real sourcing. Serious POV issues.  Enigma  message 22:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Enigmaman informed me of this article and I completely concur that it consists of too much WP:OR to be salvaged. Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Just a fairly indiscriminate list of roles, relies so heavily on WP:OR that it's hard to see how it could be kept even after a rewrite treelo  talk 22:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (see below) Even as a category or just a list, it would still be original research unless someone found a source for every one of these characters that uses the phrase "hooker with a heart of gold". Beeblbrox (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I found a similar AfD which may be of interest.  Enigma  message 23:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that everything from the "In popular culture" heading down is a mess of Original Research and should be wiped out, but I would be mildly suprised if we couldn't find enough sources to salvage the top section of the article (or a rewritten version thereof). When I get some time I'm going to have a hunt around. -- saberwyn 00:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the databases at my local university, I was able to track down thousands of reviews and articles in which someone (character or real) was described as such, as well as several articles where this was given in a list of stock characters or stereotypes, without any additional detail. However, I was unable to find any useful scholarly work that could be used to make the main encyclopedic section of the article WP:verifiable. I applaud Metropolitan90's efforts to source the article, and hope that he and the other users can continue to improve the article to a keepable standard. Other immediate concerns mean I can't help at this time. -- saberwyn 08:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There is lots of WP:OR here. Only 1 secondary footnote. Appears to lack notability. Artene50 (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very famous stock character. For that matter, someone unsuccessfully attempted to establish the opposite of this kind of character as the subject of a Wikipedia article a couple of years ago; see Articles for deletion/Vestal with a heart of coal. There is scholarly discussion of the prostitute "with a heart of gold" as a type of character. I will look for sources to add to the article during this AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a stock character used in all sorts of crap, thus notable through ubiquity, encyclopedic because of extreme use. 70.51.9.55 (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Vestal with a heart of coal was rightly deleted as a neologism. This Article is not that. Charactors and Actual people are described with this term. POV is not a deletion issue. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Imperfection is a reason to improve, not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Will you personally work on the article's OR issues then, friend? Scarian  Call me Pat!  16:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am currently rewriting the article List of female stock characters and have worked upon some of the other articles to which it links. So, yes, I might edit this one too. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Given the stature of the references who use the expression and its targeted high-brow audience, article topic is obviously an established Trope (linguistics). Reading through the references, I see no major OR issues. Its usage seems to have peaked in the 1970's, all the same notability does not expire. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep well know standard character in fiction. Can be improved adequately. DGG (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Unless you want to merge into Cardiology. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * changing to Keep with a rewrite and more accurate references The article is not a list, so the list should be cut down to a reasonable size, which should be easy to do if you remove all the unsourced bits. What's left should be incorporated into the article text. The "References" section is bloated with references that show the usage of the term but are not writing about the term itself so a lot of those should probably go as well. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep echoing Beeblbrox's recommendations --Muna (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2008 (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.