Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporary 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 keep. There's clearly no consensus to delete. It's less clear if there's a consensus to merge or not, but, that's not a decision that needs to be made here. So, I'm going to call this a keep, with no prejudice against somebody performing a merge as part of normal editorial process. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary tattoo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Fangusu (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Body painting. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 06:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why body painting? Why not tattoo? Fangusu (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Tattoo#Temporary tattoos Deletion is not cleanup. The subject is notable, or at least worth inclusion with Tattoo; so just rid of the how-to parts. IMO the recent few revisions is not be the best state this article has been; random sampling through the history nets me Special:Diff/566580345 that looks better to me at least. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to either articles mentioned above. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup is needed, but not deletion. If anyone doesn't think there is anything of value, then redirect to Tattoo#Temporary tattoos as suggested above. Deli nk (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heavy cleanup is required, but the article itself is eligible. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a redirect to Tattoo. The article might possibly be eligible but cleary fails WP:GNG. Deliberately created as artspam and has slipped throgh the net ever since. The only sources/links are still purely commercial and Ghits appear to return no dedicated in-depth treatment other than a blog-style editorial in Vogue which on its own is not enough. The section in the suggested redirect target at Tattoo#Temporary tattoos also needs better sourcing than the incorrectly cited retro enhanced Wikipedia article on a non Foundation 3rd party wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Clearly notable topic, what this article needs is sourcing, not deletion. AfD is not for cleanup, however. This is many miles over the GNG bar... See, for example, "Temporary Tattoos Have Long History," Chicago Tribune, 1999; "Hacking the Human Body With Temporary Tattoos and Tiny Implants," Smithsonian magazine, 2015; "Henna: Temporary tattoos with a rich cultural history," WMUK-FM, 2013; "Are Temporary Tattoos Safe?" Discovery.com, 2013; "Contact dermatitis after temporary henna tattoos – an increasing phenomenon," Swiss Med Weekly, 2001; ad infinitim. Carrite (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a commonly used product deserves an article. Imsare (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm afraid "temporary tattoo" is more or less synonym to "body painting" with a slightly more specific usage, but treated as synonym in the sources. The Body painting article is very well written, and has most, if not all, info that is in this article. At this time this article is a rather badly written WP:CONTENTFORK. It should be considered either to redirect or merge this to Body painting or, alternatively enlarge and WP:SPINOUT the Body painting#Temporary tattoos section from there to a stand-alone article. Kraxler (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.