Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Dots 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Three Dots Tattoo]]=

:{{la|Three Dots Tattoo}} ([{{fullurl:Three Dots Tattoo|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Dots Tattoo}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Whole thing nothing but unsourced speculation. Only source provided doesn't sound particularly authoritative and gives next to no information on it. Even if it's real it's not notable as far as I can tell. I had prodded it, but an anon user removed the prod with the edit comment "life experience is a source", which is, of course, a major violation of WP:RS, WP:OR and a zillion other policies. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep As an addiction psychologist, I can vouch for there being some significance with the three-dot tattoo in various criminal populations (gang, prison, etc.), though I have never done or seen any research to verify whether the specific claims made in the article are valid. If those claims can be substantiated, my keep vote would be stronger, but I do not have the time nor the desire to do the research myself at this time. Eauhomme (talk) 03:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep In Belgium many people who have been incarcerated (or want to pretend they have been because it fits well with their peers e.g. bikers) wear three dot tattoos. I therefor strongly suggest keeping the article. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.214.17 (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable in the absence of reliable sources. Above 'keep' comments don't provide any sources and (like the article) are relying on POV and/or OR. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that this is a real thing, but it is severly lacking sources since February, and I could only find more unreliable sources for it. There's got to be some Tattoo book out there that mentions it?
Delete though at the moment, failing WP:V. --Amalthea^Talk 14:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 21 August 2008 (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.