Talk:Pinterest

Contested deletion
Hasty nomination. I'm a veteran editor and I have zero affiliation with the website. -- Marcus  Qwertyus   05:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because you are a veteran editor does not automatically waive rules. The article is a passing mention, and does not provide any cultural interest, other then to say "Hey! We have been featured in a magazine." Need to try a little harder then that. Phearson (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What part of "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" don't you understand? Marcus   Qwertyus   05:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Does not have to be overly promotional. But I see that you have added a better source, and thus I retract my request. Phearson (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This article uses the exact same text as Pinterest's own website. Overly promotional.  I dunno if deletion is a good idea, but this thing desperately needs rewriting from an objective POV.  I have no idea what "Visual Discovery Tool" is even intended to mean.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.91.250 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The resemblance of this article's text to Pinterest's website is striking and appears excessively promotional. While outright deletion may not be necessary, a thorough rewrite from an unbiased perspective is urgently needed. Moreover, the phrase "Visual Discovery Tool" lacks clarity, leaving readers uncertain about its intended meaning. JacksonPercy 1212 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Han 2600:4041:5743:7200:3076:71DD:828E:C8A3 (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)