Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret wall tattoo


 * 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. It lacks verifiable sources to justify its inclusion. Tyrenius 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Secret wall tattoo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I tagged this article as unencyclopedic, and those who have discussed the article on the talk page seem to agree. Basically, this article is about graffiti behind pictures in hotel rooms and similar. To me, this seems like a semi-notable concept. Didn't JK Rowling do something similar after writing the last Harry Potter novel? I can't remember exactly. Anyway, the main problem with this article is that it seems to be a vehicle for an idea started by Josh Homme of the bands Kyuss and QOTSA, and the references are inadequate, not fully addressing the concept. The references may not meet WP:RS. 333 ghits for the exact phrase minus Wikipedia and mirrors. Non-notable neologism? I think the concept should be notable, but it's problematic. I'll let you decide.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete see nom Tdxz 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I sorted through all those internet hits.  The google-hits include a couple of articles in acceptable secondary sources.  Secret wall tattoos are also the topic of a lot of blog entries.  That's not surprising, as it's an 'underground art' kind of thing.  Most convincing, is that there are entries in multiple languages: English, German, Spanish and Italian (I think it was Italian, but maybe just more Spanish entries).  The coverage is spread among sites about hotels, music, visual arts, as well as general blog-space. Both those factors seem to indicate that this topic is of interest to a wider audience.  ColtsScore 05:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Can you add the "articles in acceptable secondary sources" you found to the article? It would help confirm any notability, which is lacking here. I've checked Google but can only find trivial references. 172.215.198.30 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment As for the 'discussion' on this article's talk page, I only see 2 comments there, speculating as to whether this is a hoax or not.  I found enough sources to convince me that it's not.  ColtsScore 05:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC) DES (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I feel like there ought to be a better name for it, though. I left a message under my hardwood floor just recently ("Why are you tearing up the floor?  That was a lot of work!"), so I know it's not a hoax. - Richfife 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per above -- the concept is real, and I'm hoping User:ColtsScore will add said refs to the article (hint, hint). Funny comment to put down there, too, User:Richfife...  Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep appears to be a notable enough phenomenon. Article isn't bad. Capmango 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NEO. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are about this topic. About half of the ghits for "secret wall tattoo" are Wikipedia or mirrors and vast numbers of the rest of them are blogs, message boards, myspace and other non-reliable sources, and even if those are accepted as reliable, they are not about this topic, they merely mention the words. Otto4711 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As it lacks multiple independent and reliable sources and fails WP:N. Edison 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless ColtsScore adds those "articles in acceptable secondary sources" they found. I've tried to find sources. 172.215.198.30 05:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.