Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomas Szbarro

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete' or speedy --Celestianpower hablamé 19:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tomas Szbarro

Would be copyvio from [1] except its presumably Szbarro who posted it. Unverifiable, nn, advertisement, implausible (although I can imagine him performing a 3-way with Madge and Wee Willy all right. Dlyons493 Talk 20:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advert? Hoax? Joke? Vanity? Uh, whatever it is, make it go away. MCB 06:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Do we also delete the page of the Rolling Stones? The Beatles? Please live and let live. Tomas Szbarro
      • There are some issues with the page as it stands. Firstly, it's copy violation from the site mentioned unless it's your site and you're releasing the material into the public domain. Secondly, how do we verify the accuracy of anything on the site? It may be perfectly valid but how can it be checked? Thousands of people with no relationship to them have written about the Rolling Stones and The Beatles. Perhaps you could register as a user and put this material on your user page for the moment? Once the above has been addressed there might be scope for making an article from it. Dlyons493 Talk 23:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Four Google hits for "Tomas Szbarro". NN band advert. Dismas|(talk) 10:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this hoax/joke. Did anyone listen to the MP3? It's almost funny (the operative word being "almost"). —Lifeisunfair 14:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Regardless of any other considerations, notability is not asserted. Very well-written, though. The style of writing leads me to believe that the author would maybe enjoy contributing to Everything2... this stuff doesn't really belong on Wikipedia, though. --Ashenai (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.