Talk:The Velvet Painting of Strong Bad Holding a Skunk
From Homestar Runner Wiki
This is not especially notable. It's a painting that has appeared once. As a one-off joke, I don't think it deserves a page of its own. Delete. - Qermaq - (T/C)
04:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it'd even be a very good redirect to Hanging Objects. --DorianGray 04:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Delete Loafing
04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm now confused. How is Wetski notable and Velvet Painting not? Especially since Strong Bad directly refers to the painting in the toon. wbwolf (t | ed) 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we have Hanging Objects where we note all these items. This article essentially duplicates that. Now, if it were seen often and used as, say, a running gag, then it might merit an article of its own rather than an entry on the page of hanging objects. On the other hand, the Wet-Ski isn't really notable on a catch-all page, but it deserves noting, so it has an article. If there were a lot of closely-related items like the Wet-Ski which all had one or two appearances each, then I'd support deleting the Wet-Ski article in favor of including it on a new page detailing all those items. Does that make sense? - Qermaq - (T/C)
14:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we have Hanging Objects where we note all these items. This article essentially duplicates that. Now, if it were seen often and used as, say, a running gag, then it might merit an article of its own rather than an entry on the page of hanging objects. On the other hand, the Wet-Ski isn't really notable on a catch-all page, but it deserves noting, so it has an article. If there were a lot of closely-related items like the Wet-Ski which all had one or two appearances each, then I'd support deleting the Wet-Ski article in favor of including it on a new page detailing all those items. Does that make sense? - Qermaq - (T/C)
- I'm now confused. How is Wetski notable and Velvet Painting not? Especially since Strong Bad directly refers to the painting in the toon. wbwolf (t | ed) 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- He does refer to it. And it does play and important role. It's not like it was just a background item. Keep. Though, I had a feeling that this was going to be questionable.
- It's not in doubt that it's referred to, or that it plays an important role. It's a picture listed on Hanging Objects, and the article essentially 1) describes the painting and 2) makes a supposition about the scene depicted. None of that is really necessary, as we can see the picture just fine and already know all that. - Qermaq - (T/C)
15:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's not in doubt that it's referred to, or that it plays an important role. It's a picture listed on Hanging Objects, and the article essentially 1) describes the painting and 2) makes a supposition about the scene depicted. None of that is really necessary, as we can see the picture just fine and already know all that. - Qermaq - (T/C)
- I agree. Delete Loafing
