Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tattoodles


 * 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. No assertion has been made that the site meets WP:WEB, although this is a borderline case. I checked the links on the article and only one of them links to actual coverage; the rest link to the top page of the magazine in question. In order to prove significant press coverage we really need to know article dates, authors, and the context (verification is impossible without such details). I would say no prejudice to recreation of an article which unambiguously meets WP:WEB. Sam Blacketer 21:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Tattoodles

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a for-pay tattoo design site. Reads like an advert, fails WP:WEB. No references. Does not adhere to WP:NPOV.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:WEB and WP:SPAM. Stormtracker94 16:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete spam Although the spam has been fixed this is not really encyclopedic and has seems to have notability issues. -- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as blatant spam. This should have been tagged with a CSD. GlassCobra 17:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — useless spam. -- Ag ü  eybaná  17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete I've reworked this article in a neutral fashion...any suggestions on how I can improve on this? I'm new to this. Thank you for your help. --Lucretiastone 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Above user has rewritten article from neutral point of view. It may still fail WP:WEB, but I'm not exactly sure. Comment Still fails WP:WEB.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ADVERT. Jonathan t - c 23:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not delete Rewritten once again having read more info on Wikipedia requirements. Please review. --Lucretiastone 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it still fails WP:WEB; just not notable enough for Wikipedia.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 00:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for sources (looking at this version). There are claims of reliable sources support in the article with links to legitimate magazines covering the trade.  The failure here is in specific citation.  A chance should be given for an editor to convert the generic magazine links and claims of reliable source support into specific citations.  If this cannot be done - it should come back here for deletion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Even with the rewrite its still just an ad. for a nn org. Marcus22 15:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it appears to be legit. I have added in-line cites, a stub, and tags. Bearian 15:38, 9 October 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.