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 delete. Consensus judges this to be an indiscriminate list. Lists linking items by only their name are not encyclopedic, and this isn't a disambiguation page. Fences&Windows 21:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of things described as painted[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

indiscriminate list, along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied‎ JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as nom as a partial title match list. They aren't dabs and they aren't valid list articles. See also:

--JHunterJ (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the word may be used in natural history, i think the use is too general, unlike, say "rufous" which is a particular color. i love the movies. im sure film buffs have described these movies as "painted", ie, they opened up the film cases and felt the physical film itself appeared "painted" in character. this is a search term turned into an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete per nom. This is an indiscriminate list based on a keyword - specifically not a disambiguation page according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep to avoid a snowball from cries for speedy delete. WP:SPEEDY lists what qualifies as a speedy delete, and if this matches any of the situations with the letter "G", then someone refers to that as well. It is not a synonym for "strong delete". That said, I think that there is room in Wikipedia for an article about "painted" as a term used in when applied to flora and fauna in the sense of natural color. At the moment, painted is a "re-DUH-rect" to paint, and if any of the article contributors wanted to take this down for retooling as an article called "Painted", I'll have no compaints. Not much more than a weak keep, because this is, as some have pointed out, cobbled together from articles that have the word "painted" in them. I appreciate that someone has taken the time to add discriminating information, but even though it's not an indiscriminate list, it's not a disambiguation page either. Mandsford (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If this list is not indiscriminate, then no lists are indiscriminate. An article could not be written about the term "painted" as used in the names of flora and fauna because there aren't any sources that make a connection between the individual uses of the term. Both precedence and guidelines agree that this is not an appropriate page for inclusion on Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I agree that this article is slightly more useful than some of the other related AfDs, but it's still not enough for inclusion. Sorry. I realise a lot of time went into this, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.