Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hookers with hearts of gold

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Any subsequent merge/redirect/cleanup is an editorial issue. Sandstein 12:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hookers with hearts of gold[edit]

List of hookers with hearts of gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am completing an incomplete afd nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a notable fictional archetype, and the current list is comprised almost entirely of notable examples. Tarinth 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - List of characters conforming to a well known storytelling archetype. Further, no original nomination reason specified. --Eyrian 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hooker with a heart of gold and source (was Keep and clean up: (was Delete). Hilarious list, but unverifiable by any reliable source. See also the relevant section of the list guideline, which reiterates that list membership must be established by reliable sources. (Didn't we delete a list of Mary Sues recently? I can't find it, but I can't remember the exact page title to do a log search.) TheronJ 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree it could use some sourcing, but that shouldn't be difficult given a large body of professional literature academics who write about this sort of thing. I think the list can be given an opportunity for additional sourcing. Tarinth 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to keeping the list, but deleting all unverified entries, but I think it would be cleaner to just delete the list and include any sourced examples on the main article, Hooker with a heart of gold, then spin off to a full list once there are enough entries. TheronJ 22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Maybe I made my challenge a little too easy (below), but Pascal met it, and it looks like he is (1) capable and (2) willing to clean up the list, so keep and clean-up. TheronJ 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Will do my best. Pascal.Tesson 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: I know, it's lame to change my opinion twice, but (1) we're reaching consensus, not voting, and (2) my "keep and clean up" was based on Pascal's promise to do that, and now I see that he's willing to merge, which is even better. I think the agreement between Trialsanderrors and Pascal to merge is an even better plan than keeping, so (s)merge and clean up. TheronJ 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Suffers from POV problems as determining what hookers have hearts of gold is completely subjective. Otto4711 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu
  • The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be a relisting; see this subpage — Iamunknown 05:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes he does, see the comment "delete as nominator" a few lines up. >Radiant< 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. Tag for WP:V, though. AndyJones 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective -Docg 14:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV and original research. >Radiant< 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly subjectives- who determines who has a heart of gold? Clearly arbitrary and unclear ground for inclusion. Also term hooker is unnecessarily offensive. If kept, suggest title of Positive portrayals of prostitutes in fiction or similar. But that stills seems to me be highly subjective and invite OR. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 18:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe this comment misunderstands the use of the term as an archetype within fiction. With due respect, the suggested change of title would deal with a different topic entirely. As for who determines who has a heart of gold, there's quite a body of literature criticism to source for that. Tarinth 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There is no escaping the subjective elements of all the words in the title. Another suggestion might be List of altruistic prostitutes in fiction. Though I stand by the idea that however phrased, the category for inclusion is going to remain a matter of personally opinion, rendering the list indiscriminate and unmaintainable. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really is not subjective (at least not for Wikipedia editors). We can point to the body of literature and film criticism who classify characters into this category. As a suggestion, please search on "hooker with a heart of gold" on google (include quotes) and you will find numerous reviews and criticisms which use this, including many from peer-reviewed scholarly literature. I know you find the term subjective or perhaps irresponsible, but nevertheless this is the selfsame phrase you'll read in virtually any creative-writing book that deals with characters based on this archetype. Tarinth 20:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable fictional character-cruft. If kept, title needs to be changed to reflect that these are fictional characters and not real hookers with hearts of gold (I'm sure they're out there!). Recury 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please tell me you're joking. It's not Wikipedia's mission to be idiot-proof. Pascal.Tesson 10:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep high-entertainment value. All kidding aside, I'd like to address the above concerns about subjectivity. This is not a list about altruistic prostitutes, it's a list of characters which reasonably match the description given at hooker with a heart of gold. It's useful to have this list of examples precisely because it supports that article (which I think all would agree to keep without question). So what if some of the fictional hookers on the list only had hearts of silver? The list still serves its purpose. Plus most of the films cited are so well-known that I bet with a few days work we could actually find at least one film critic supporting that classification. Pascal.Tesson 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One film critic, or even 5, is not enough - all you'd have is a 'list of people some film critics called...'. It is still subjective. It can't be anything but. An article on 'hookers with a hear of gold' can say x has been described as such by film critic y' and thus retain a descriptive neutrality. But lists are Binary, Wikipedia has to decide who is and who isn't, that ultimately is subjective and thus cannot comply with NPOVV. It doesn't matter how many people !vote that this is entertaining, it offends core policy and MUST be deleted. Sorry.--Docg 10:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a few minutes' work will do the trick (no pun intended). for True Romance for Klute, for La Traviata, Mighty Aphrodite, etc... And why should we suddenly have gazillions of critics using that term before we use it on the list. This is like saying that when describing Klute we can't write that Bree Daniels is a hooker with a heart of gold unless Entertainment Tonight has proclaimed it. I'm not sure what's the sudden rage to kill this list. Is it listo-phobia or is it political correctness? I'm hoping for the former because, as has been pointed out, this is a very much used term and has to be (and always has been) taken with a grain of salt. Pascal.Tesson 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. It is just that a million years' work can't make this objective.--Docg 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extra reply to Doc above. I value NPOV as much as anyone, trust me. But you are applying it without the degree of common sense that is required in this case. Also let me make it clear that I don't think the article should be kept because it's entertaining but because it provides a valuable encyclopedic resource that complements the article hooker with a heart of gold, which is also a valuable topic of definite interest. This list also happens to be entertaining. Also, if you think that helps the lead can be changed to something more elaborate so that it's understood that the list is not intended to be a subjective judgement but rather a list of examples which were deemed significant by reliable sources (see above examples. But please let's not start creating List of fictional characters who have been described as a "hooker with a heart of gold" which we know is an offensive term but hey we did not make it up. Pascal.Tesson 10:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry to have to do it but my vote is a delete. This is a fairly arbitrary list, many of the entries are not actually sex workers. So the list comes close to a random collection of information. Perhaps some canonical examples can be added to Hooker with a heart of gold for readers to look up. Sam Blacketer 10:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well if some entries have no business there, let's delete them. Why do you feel the need to axe it entirely. While I'm at it, let me also point out to Doc above that noone in their right mind would want to delete List of blaxploitation films. Yet, this classification is not objective in the very strict sense that you mention. So why do we keep it? We keep it because it's a well-known film genre, an oft used terminology and one that allows us to provide interesting unbiased content. The core policy of neutrality (if one takes the time to re-read it properly) is intended to handle controversial subjects and to avoid original research or "truthiness", not to prevent Wikipedia from using classifications of topics, characters, genres and so on. Pascal.Tesson 21:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind this article, which is really just a branched-off list, what about Hooker with a heart of gold? In opera most often portrayed by a mezzosoprano? Can anyone source this or is this all complete OR? ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what that mezzosoprano business is all about but there's no denying that "hooker with a heart of gold" is the standard way to refer to this archetype. I suppose it does not say much but the phrase gets 39K hits on Google. Throw in, say, film + critic and you will still get hundreds of hits. I'm not going to defend the current content of the article (since its overall quality is subpar) but there's no denying that this is a valid encyclopedic topic on which a very interesting article could be built. Pascal.Tesson 21:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm all favor of scrapping the current content then, picking three or four valid references and writing a quick sourced stub. I'm not in favor of keeping unsourced crap content around, even if there is a potential article on the subject. Because it's very clear that once the AfD caravan moves on the article won't be touched again. ~ trialsanderrors 02:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wooooh, hold the flamethrower. I know exactly what you mean about the article never being touched again but there's more than one sentence there to be saved. Actually, is wiki-bribery allowed on AfD? If so, I'd like to offer the following: we keep both articles and I solemnly vow to delete from the list every entry for which I can't find solid references (and by that I mean at least one respected critic's description of that character as a prototypical "hooker with a heart of gold" and to weed out the unsourced crap out of the main article. Pascal.Tesson 02:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia. Nothing disappears into the memory hole. If there is support for the mezzosoprano comment it can easily be rewritten or recovered from the edit history. I don't know what wikibribery means though. ~ trialsanderrors 03:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google book search reveals lots and lots of writing about prostitutes in fiction, including some referring to the "hooker with a heart of gold" stock character as far back as Ancient Greek literature. There should be plenty of material out there, a good opportunity for improvement. Mangojuicetalk 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These types of lists are problematic and not terribly valuable, even if you source them. If I saw some solid sourcing on this one, I'd consider keeping, but without that, delete. - Taxman Talk 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I do see some examples that might conceivably be able to have reliable sources, so it's possible. But I still prefer the merge solution below. - Taxman Talk 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article name is just right for the concept, so no problem there. The list is unsourced, but definitely not unverifiable, tag it for cleanup and it will hopefully improve. If we could have a sourced version of this, it should improve from here, not be deleted: there are a lot of entries here, and the buildup of that information will be hard to replicate. There are probably some questionable entries, but then perfection is not required. Finally, unlike many lists, this one cannot be replaced with a category, because most of these characters don't have articles. Mangojuicetalk 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a challenge. If someone can come up with a adequate, verifiable, reliable references establishing that (1) Blanche DuBois is a hooker with a heart of gold; OR (2) Nandi is a HwaHoG but Inara_Serra isn't, OR (3) that ANY other three entries on the list are demonstrably HwaHoG's, then I will change my vote to keep. If not, what's to keep? A list where no entry whatsoever is verified? What good is that? (Also, if none of the proponents can verifiably source any of the entries, what evidence is there that future editors will source all of them?) Alternately, lets delete all of the unverified entries and stubbify. TheronJ 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose that as far as archetypes go, Blanche DuBois is a Southern Belle, not a hwahog and, as I've said, I volunteer to do the cleanup if we keep the list. It's a bit unfair however to challenge proponents to defend the questionable entries since we all agree that the list badly needs some cleaning up. But let me at least try to establish that "hooker with a heart of gold" has been very much used to describe Bree Daniels in Klute [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], Mira Sorvino in Mighty Aphrodite [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], Pretty Woman [11] [12] [13] [14]. Note that while not all of these sources quite qualify as reliable sources, most come from reputable newspaper critics. Furthermore, this is simply a list of sources I could find online and that means I of course haven't gone to my university library to go through the numerous books discussing film archetypes, portrayals of women in fiction and whatnot but the abundance of references is a strong sign that such scholarly references do exist. For instance, I submit as evidence 11B, this Master's thesis [15] (see the abstract) which clearly demonstrates that this is a well-studied archetype. Pascal.Tesson 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see how this list can possibly work. Is it going to include anyone who has ever been referred to as a "hooker with a heart of gold" in a reliable source? If so, then the list is too big -- it will include people like Divine Brown (See Feminism, Media, and the Law, p. 11 ("Here, the proverbial 'hooker with a heart of gold' ended up with a small pot of it as well"), despite the fact that Ms. Brown's only accomplishments are (1) blowing Hugh Grant, and (2) selling her story to the tabloid press, neither of which reliably establishes her heart of gold. Alternately, will the list only include people who meet the characteristics of a "hooker with a heart of gold?" If so, it's original research, and also unworkable, because I have no idea what those limiting criteria are. Thanks, TheronJ 17:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a notable fictional archetype that is still in common usage.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a proposal to delete the article about the archetype, but the unverified list of them. - Taxman Talk 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No shit sherlock, but if the archetype is notable, a list of its most notable portrayals certainly is.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So not only are you wrong, but you're rude about it too. Nice combo. - Taxman Talk 18:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Hooker with a heart of gold. Keeping it as "List of..." seems to me to imply a kind of endorsement, the way List of Nobel laureates kind of makes you think that that's objective fact, they've definitely won Nobel Prizes. If you merge it into Hooker with a heart of gold, the idea is explained, so it's qualified, and not as much a statement that "these people are definitely hookers with hearts of gold". delldot | talk 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Redirect to hooker with a heart of gold, which itself needs sourcing and which should be the first target of improvement. If the list of sourced examples grows too long to be contained in the main article it can be folded back out. There is no reason to delete the material, but there is also in the current condition of main article and list no reason to keep this separate. Entirely unsourced lists like this are only invitations to add more names without consideration of sourcing. ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment merging seems like a reasonable solution: it provides better context and (to some weak extent) deters excessive bloating. If this does get merge, I'll prune the list extensively. Pascal.Tesson 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. Prune it down to the ones that have unambiguous reliable sources and cover those in the article until there are too many verified entries and the list needs to be brought back. Prune the article back to what's verifiable while you're at it. Thanks for being willing to work on it. Earlier you asked why the sudden rush to kill the list and why must it suddenly have only verifiable entries. The answer is simple, that should always be the case, it's just we have a ton of people adding material that don't follow the guidelines. That's not the end of the world, we just need to fix it when we see it, and for whatever reason, people have seen this one now. - Taxman Talk 19:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fictional archetype. Common in many cultures, such as Hong Kong films. Suggest to group the entries into different languages to make it more interesting and easier to verify. Also suggest rename to List of fictional hookers with hearts of gold for clarity. Merge is also fine, per delldot.--Vsion 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some non-fictional hookers with hearts of gold portraied in the movies. As an alternative to changing the article name, perhaps the list should have fictional and non-fictional sections. In any event, something needs to be done in this regard to bring the article into Wikipedia compliance. -- Jreferee 15:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a non-fictional section is most definitely out of the question. For one thing, "hooker" carries heavy negative connotations (of course so does "prostitute"!) and there's absolutely no way to add an actual person to that list without violating oh so many core policies. In particular, this would be original research: in the case of fictional characters we do have the possibility to document some agreement amongst film critics that a given character fits the archetype. Pascal.Tesson 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Merge per Vsion above --T-rex 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (conditional) Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. See Wikipedia:Lists. This seems to be the focus of most of the above comments - the list is subjective because of an insufficient membership criteria and the present entries do not reflect a workable membership criteria. "Hooker with the heart of gold" is a well understood term used in the entertainment industry and there are many third party sources that could be cited for the membership criteria and for the entries made on the list. There probably is a way to identify what is included in this list and to keep the entries restricted to the membership criteria. With more time, I believe that the editors of List of hookers with hearts of gold should be able to use the comments posted in this AfD to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies. My conclusion to keep is conditional on efforts made to address the comments posted here and the article in fact being brought into compliance with Wikipedia policies. If there is need for a second AfD, the requester should identify the efforts made to address the comments posted here in addition to the Wikipedia policy violations. -- Jreferee 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as good and as useful as all the others. In this case truly a notably important list for the genre.DGG 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, can it be neutrally and objectively defined - you haven't answered that. If it can't it must be deleted. Notability is irrelevant.--Docg 18:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because there is a body of scholarly literary criticism to draw upon. Tarinth 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars have objectively decided who is and who is not a prostitute and who has an has not got a heart of gold? Wow! I find that heard to believe. But can there be an objective scholarly test for whether a someone is a prostitute or has a golden heart? Still seems inherently POV to me. --Docg 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether or not a given fictional character is a prostitute is most certainly something that does not require the educated opinion of scholars. The problem is with the heart of gold business. Of course, you won't find any deep scholarly debates on whether the heart of Bree Daniels is a full 24 carats but I don't feel that this is the issue at hand. What we are looking for is significant evidence that a large number of independent scholarly sources consider this character to be representative of a well known stock character, most commonly refered to as the "hooker with a heart of gold" (although I'm sure you'll find many observers using different terminology). Yes it is difficult to find a single authoritative definition for this concept and you'll find some discrepancy in its use. The same can be said for anti-hero, villain, mad scientist but I still believe that all these topics and related lists can be constructed in a careful manner so as to include examples which are universally recognized as fitting the archetype. Pascal.Tesson 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my thinking is similar to yours on this. The question is NOT:
  • Can we define the term "hooker with a heart of gold" then demonstrate using reliable sources that a given character fits our definition?
Instead it is the (much simpler):
  • Do reliable sources refer to a given character using the term "hooker with a heart of gold"? AndyJones 20:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The term is so commonplace, that any new term we might use would be original research in itself. This is the term, for better or worse, that you'll find used throughout literature. Tarinth 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable fictional archetype, useful as any other list on Wikipedia. Silensor 04:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, can it be neutrally and objectively defined - you haven't answered that. If it can't it must be deleted. Notability is irrelevant.--Docg 18:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per my previous answer to the same question. Tarinth 19:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, singificant archetype, list of examples is useful. Perfectly reliable critical sources frequently use this term. Frankly I'm not sure where Doc is headed with his argument -- half the topics on Wikipedia can't be neutrally or objectively defined, e.g. country, city, war, nation, etc. I don't see that this inhibits our writing about the topic neutrally -- we simply need to present both sides of contested issues. A list is quite capable of doing this (unlike a category). Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To try to explain in a nutshell (and then I'll drop it): articles can discuss whether someone is x or not. They can qualify statement with 'generally regarded' or 'according to reliable source y' - thus Wikipedia doesn't have to decide whether the subject is truly x or not. Lists are different, because ultimately we have to put the subject on the list of x (meaning we agree that they are x) or exclude them. Wikipedia has to make a decision. The fact we can show that a number of reliable sources agree with our assessment doesn't cure that - we are still making an assessment, we are no longer neutral.--Docg 21:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wholly disagree, but I would make two comments: (1) your view basically excludes lists altogether; certainly, I think, it would require the deletion of most of the lists we have on Wikipedia, and probably all of the most useful ones. (2) further, the idea that articles aren't subject to the exclude/include dilemma while lists are is false; the same techniques used to qualify the inclusion of information in articles (e.g. to explain the scope of Western culture) can be used to qualify the inclusion of information in lists. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) How about qualifying the whole list by stating that "The following is a list of notable fictional characters generally regarded (or have been described by sources) as hookers with a heart of gold ..." --Vsion 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That definitely sounds like a good idea. I think it would also make sense (like it does in so many lists) to hide a note in the source requesting that people add new entries with some degree of care. I've seen that done a number of times and I think it helps somewhat. Furthermore, adding references systematically will probably set a good example for future additions. Pascal.Tesson 23:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable but I don't think we should bury the article beneath a lot of half-hearted qualifiers either. We just need to focus on providing good sourcing, and after this survives AfD I'm willing to help with that; hopefully others who supported this article will do so as well. Tarinth 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he he he... now that you've made that promise, it's forever available in the edit history and I can hold you to it! :-) Thanks for volunteering. Pascal.Tesson 00:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many of the above arguments. The list is well-defined. Needs a dose of WP:V, though. --- RockMFR 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Funny, but not supported by WP:LIST: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed... Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit." If any of these entries can actually find a source (any of the currently 71 entries all of which are unsourced) can find a secondary source so it is not just Wikipedia contributors saying that these character are hookers with a heart of gold, then they can be added to the main article (assuming the main article can find a source to describe what a "hooker with a heart of gold" is). --maclean 07:00, 10 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_hookers_with_hearts_of_gold&oldid=1146516355"