Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballpoint tattoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete, but the existing version could probably be transwiki'd. W.marsh 20:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ballpoint tattoo

Ballpoint_tattoo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Neutral I am familiar with the slang term, I can see it existing as an article provided it is bolstered with at least some form of reference or citation. --Ozgod 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but tag as needing sources – Qxz 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Trans-wiki - Move to Wikitionary. I am concerned that there is only 1 real article linking to this (Ballpoint pen), but could exists as a definition. -AtionSong 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Trans-wiki to Wiktionary unless expanded I agree with AtionSong, this looks to be little more than a slang definition. Unless it can be expanded, simply move it to Wiktionary and/or possibly merge into, say, Tattoo as a short paragraph or subsection. Dugwiki 22:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge somewhere Since I see girls at school with flowers and hearts drawn on their arms and legs in pen all the time, infact my friend had a flower drawn on her leg today, they do it during class while they're bored. --Candy-Panda 12:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a "Usage guide or slang and idiom guide". Delete. Dmcdevit·t 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to be fair, though, Wikipedia does have articles about notable slang terms that are written to explore the history and usage nuances of the term that go beyond a typical dictionary definition. So if this article was likewise expanded with proper sources to that more encyclopedic level of information, then it would probably be ok. Dugwiki 17:54, 20 February 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.