Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Hits (Beyoncé album)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits (Beyoncé album)[edit]

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

I've just declined the speedy on this which said it was a hoax. I can't find anything immediately which I would expect, but then sometimes these things get hidden. If a hatful of people at this AfD think it's a hoaxy enough for speedy, then I'll close it as such. Ged UK 21:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or not, unless established by WP:RS, this is not a suitable subject for an article. Chester Markel (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not WP:NOTABLE or even sourced or confirmed in existence. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per WP:HOAX. I stand by my original CSD nomination of speedy delete as a blatant hoax. The information doesn't make sense per comments by JohnfromPickney and Erpert. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A 16-song, 2-cd EP?!? Supposed either to have come out January 7, 2010 (infobox) or to come out January 7, 2011 (Release history at bottom) but Amazon.com has never heard of it. Due in two weeks or out for the last year, and nobody's written a word about it? Naw, smells too bad to keep. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. This search says it all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined another speedy attempt because it isn't blatant, but the lack of sources indicates this is a probable hoax and at the least not notable. RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 25 December 2010 (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.