Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tazzella


 * 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. JForget 01:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tazzella

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A user brought up this unsourced article at the help desk (link) alleging that the subject is a hoax. I have searched Google web and books for ,  with no relevant results. Both this article and the Spanish version have one reference and using my computer's find function on both pages (1 & 2), I find no mention of this title or the Spanish title. Likewise, the name asserted in the article as how they are known in Spanish and French, "Briansel Sháztelas", returns no sources anywhere I've checked. Possibly a last name—an attempt at a little dubious Wikipedia fame?—but this is only based on my inability to find sources rather than anything about the topic that screams hoax, so I wanted to give the community a chance to take a look. We can always G3 it if its fictitious nature becomes clear.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was the one who find the article. In es_WP was speedy deleted, and the illustration was deleted in Commons for not add sources or licences, but it was very difficult to have both because the image was probably stolen. All the 5 images from this user in commons were deleted for the same reason. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, this user loves to recreate the deleted articles. In es_WP were I do maintenance we deleted it several times. Chears. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Hoax. I see no references and no citations, but I only see a link to the blogging site. The article fails WP:N. JJ98 (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Hoax! Naraht (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - at best, fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - obvious hoax/madeup item. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong and speedy delete per Orange Mike. ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow delete - Unwikified and unsourced original essay if it's not an outright hoax. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Mainly the great lack of reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't find a single reliable source on this topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per all above, + excruciatingly bad English. 220.101 talk\Contribs 02:42, 4 September 2010 (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.