Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlimited (Hilary Duff 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 --JForget 01:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimited (Hilary Duff album)[edit]

It's a fan-made compilation distributed using the usual fileshare channels. Fails Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I'm getting a ton of ghits, and while it is weak via Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums_and_songs, it seems to have a lot of attention brought to it. I'm no fan of hers (quite the opposite) but she is quite notable, and sheer volume of references to this album that can be found counts for something. I haven't combed all the ghits for "Hilary Duff" Unlimited (as it brought back 280,000 ghits) but I find it hard to believe that nothing can be found, even if it isn't easy. Articles must be verifiable, not verified. Since this article was created just over a day aho, I think it needs more time to develop rather than be deleted. Pharmboy (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click through to the last page of results on Google to get the true figure. In this case, it's 645 - not all of them relevant (many of them just contain 'Hilary Duff' and the word 'unlimited' on the same page). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something on google is borked, as it won't show past 726, even if you choose to see 'omitted results', multiple times. I understand what you are saying, but I am also seeing the album featured on Yahoo downloads and pretty mainstream places. I am not saying this meets policy by itself, I am just saying I think you rushed the nom a bit as there is a lot of talk out there about the album from mainstream sites (but the links I can get in 3 minutes don't wp:rs). Again, I have no use for Hilary Duff, but this just seems to have too much attention drawn to it to be not notable. If nothing else, this is one of the very few cases when WP:IAR might apply (justified by the quality of non-wp:rs coverage + the artist is unquestionably notable). I won't labor it, but I am hoping you see why I think this is more of a borderline case than the nomination itself may indicate. Pharmboy (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The speedy should have been honored. This isn't really even a non-notable album by a notable personality ... it's something fans put together with scotch tape and crayons. Fails notability requirements.Kww (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been speedily deleted. it is not techincally her album and alot of the info is false. The article is pretty much orphaned and not mentioned in her discog. or main article. --neonwhite user page talk 03:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless I can start adding my old mix-tapes to Wiki Rotovia (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a non-notable album. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a bootleg that fails notability requirements. There are occasions where bootleg releases might gain notability but this isn't one of those occasions. 23skidoo (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a fan-compilation and it doesnt meet notability criteria. It was also nominated for speedy deletion. Since it is a fan compilation album with no source/info on the internet, i guess it shd be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprince007 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an album by hilary duff is notable, random collections of bootlegs online? not so much... --T-rex 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy per A7 - Fails notability criteria, not official at all. Unless somebody sues over copyvio, in which case it would be notable, WP doesn't need an article on it. Firestorm (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2008 (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.