Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tat-Friendly


 * 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. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Tat-Friendly

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Content is about the history of tattoos, however the term "Tat-Friendly" has no reliable sources backing it up. Obviously created to serve as advertising (see ). Since the term "Tat-Friendly" is presented as an advertising slogan, I don't think a redirect to Tattoo is appropriate. Evil saltine (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I can't seem to find any secondary sources to support the actual use of this term after quick Google search. Also "sources" in the article are offline so can't see them. I says delete per WP:OR— Chris! c / t 20:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Non-Notable Neologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment of the term "tat-friendly". It is indeed a term that is used within the tattoo community, and references the increasingly important issue of tattoo discrimination. It has even been used in a news article (http://www.ntnewsnet.net/?p=1486) discussing the very issue raised in my article. It is not simply slang -- it refers to the difficulties of those with tattoos in finding places that will accept them. Regarding the use of "tat-friendly" as an advertising slogan, this information is presented in the article as an informative note, and does not in any way glorify or try to promote the company. Other existing Wikipedia pages, such as "Got Milk?" -- which is itself just an advertising slogan -- provide users with information regarding which companies have used the slogan. If my inclusion of this information is inappropriate, I apologize, but then surely much of the "Got Milk" page should be removed as well. I would like the tat-friendly article to be 100% compliant with Wikipedia standards, so please let me know if there is anything I can add to it to make it better. It is such an important issue and I do not want to see it deleted because I failed to do it justice with my writing. Thank you. JenThorpeMoscon (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding reliable secondary sources would be a good start. For example, the link you provided above doesn't look reliable at all. You would need to find better ones. Even if it is truly a term used within the tattoo community, we can't include it unless it is covered by other sources. Note that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" per WP:V.— Chris! c / t 17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly understand wanting facts stated to be supported with evidence. I am a little less clear on which news sources count as reliable and which do not. http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/4536759 discusses the tat-friendly issue as well and uses the term in so doing. Is this a better news source? Wikipedia's article on Identifying Reliable Sources states that "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable", and The Daily Record seems to me to be mainstream. Thank you again for your help. JenThorpeMoscon (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally major news sites like New York Times, Washington Post, CNN etc are considered more reliable than unknown news sites.— Chris! c / t 04:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An article merely using the term "tat-friendly" rather than actually describing the usage of the phrase is a primary source. Wikipedia does not generally use primary sources unless backed up by a reliable secondary source (see WP:PRIMARY). Evil saltine (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as it currently stands. This is basically a dictionary definition of a slang term. I noticed it has no categories and tried to think of a category for it, but couldn't. Basically there is no place to put this article; an article by this title does not belong on Wikipedia. HOWEVER (JenThorpeMoscon please note), you do seem to have something to say here and some sources to support it. I have a feeling there could be a Wikipedia-appropriate article with a lot of this same content, with a different title - something like "social acceptance of tattoos" or "tattoo discrimination," something that indicates what the content of the article actually is. If this article gets deleted, I would suggest you use the same sources and some of the same prose to write such an article. If the article gets kept, ask for a move to a better title, leaving a redirect at Tat-friendly (small "F"). Another hint: try to have the references link to the URL whenever possible; that makes it much easier for people to confirm that the reference actually supports what you said. See References for beginners if you're not sure how to do this. --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (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.