Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Stripping Jesus"

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Stripping Jesus"

Original commentary about a non-notable work of art. Seems to be an ad for "maleperfection.net" anyway. Rhobite 07:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Poorly titled. Delete unless notability established. Slac speak up! 07:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not a famous image, so delete unless the artist can be established as noteworthy. The article is just a rant. A vanity piece by the artist or just an advertisement for the website? Paradiso 08:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No decision. Fame of the image is hard to evaluate. -Casito 09:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as advertising. Charles Matthews 10:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Cunningly camouflaged link spam. Actually not that cunning, as the article is also crap. Securiger 11:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I see no reason to doubt the fame of the image. The article may be relevant. Sirkumsize 03:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- How about zero Google hits for "stripping jesus" boycott? This is manufactured controversy, designed to drive traffic to some random web site. Rhobite 03:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn. Radiant _* 10:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete No google hits for "Stripping Jesus" + "Athen Grey" Dsmdgold 14:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable and POV issues. —Sesel wa 09:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Seems to be a rant against the church. Oliver Keenan 17:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.