Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tattoo Assassins

Tattoo Assassins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

the article, as it is, fails gng by having one (1) probably reliable source, with the rest of it being unsourced info and seemingly inappropriate external links. surprisingly, though, i did find some potentially reliable sources and stashed them in one of my sandboxes, but incorporating them would likely require starting from scratch... so i'll vote to do exactly that. see also the edit history, as it had a lot of content before being trimmed down into nearly nothing, though said content is just more unsourced info, a trivia section, and a lot of speculation consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 02:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 02:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• additional notes (and stuff):

• link to the sandbox in question (and to the diff containing the sources, as it's quite prone to change)
• the unseen64 feature from the article. while i don't think it's debatable that it's an inappropriate external link, i feel it may need to be evaluated separately as a source
• i'll be creating a draft soon, using at least those sources. granted, my vote will still be to start over, as i don't think i can finish a draft in less than... a lot of time

i think i'm forgetting a delsort category... consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 02:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article isn’t in such a bad shape to require a TNT. I haven’t made any search for sources but if the nom claims that they have some sources in their sandbox, why are we here? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:TNT is an essay in any case and not an AFD close. I would suggest the nominator to withdraw and just implement their changes into the article. IgelRM (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  eh, fair. will be doing that, but unless someone else is in the mood to close as withdrawn before then, i'll let the afd go on for 3 more days (that is, until february 4) in case more stuff is found while i'm sleeping like a log. still, i don't think a lot of the current article will survive... consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 23:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]