Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weeping painting


 * 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 weeping statue. The article does not demonstrate stand alone notability. Much of the material in this article is already redundant to that article and so was not necessary for a merge, but some small amount of material has been moved into the article along with documentation for one notable case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Weeping painting

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

Assessment comments[show]

The article Weeping painting has no references and a simple web search shows no clear references for the term either. It does not even mention a single example of a weeping painting (verified or not). It is a hopeless article. I suggest the article should be deleted. It is enough to make a Wikepedian weep. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with weeping statue - a version of the same phenomenon. FWIW, a moment with a search engine comes up with a fair number of reliable sources discussing the phenomenon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Because it is not a common enough reliable phenomena. It is always easier to issue a merge command than actually do the work. The sources I looked at all mentioned fake cases, and were not high quality anyway. My suggestion: those who recommend a merge should work together to get 1 or 2 paragraphs about weeping paintings here and I will merge it with weeping statue. I spent a lot of time cleaning up weeping sttue and if I can get weeping painting done right by those who think its hould survive, I will merge it. Else let us delete it if armchiar observers just want to order a merge. Thanks History2007 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to weeping statue. That is not the easy way out, but the proper thing to do. Wikipedia is not about what is "real" anyway. If there were cases of (fake) weeping painting, this can very properly be included in the other article. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to the better known Weeping statue - this is just a variation on the other --T-rex 23:35, 1 September 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.