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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Imbruglia: The Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I have just closed the RFD at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_7#Natalie_Imbruglia:_The_Collection due to consensus that this needs to be reverted and discussed at an AfD and not and RfD. As I pointed out, this is almost certainly the second or third oldest hoax discovered in the history of the encyclopedia as it was created almost 10 years ago. There are absolutely no sources to confirm the existence of such an album. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the editors who participated in the aforementioned discussion:@Rubbish computer, SMcCandlish, Thryduulf, and EurekaLott:. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable if this real at all. Googling about for info on this alleged bootleg, I'm not finding anything that doesn't resolve back to Wikipedia. That said, I have all sorts of bootlegs (granted, from an earlier period, and more obscure acts) that don't turn up in G hits, either. If the album is real, and editors at Natalie Imbruglia consider it encyclopedically relevant, mention of it can be integrated into the discography section of the main article. Even that would be pretty unusual; WP doesn't usually cover bootlegs unless there's something remarkable about them. PS: I would bet good money that what this really is about is a long-dead torrent, not a physical bootleg of any kind.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either a hoax or a non-notable bootleg. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - concur, this is most likely a long-gone non-notable bootleg. No sign of anything on a web search. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as far as I can see, absolutely no evidence this exists. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as either a hoax or non notable. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I kind of dislike the idea that this was originally turned into a redirect rather than being directly nominated for deletion, because of the fact that this hoax has remained on here for so long, I just happened to be nominating problematic redirects that I　could find the other day and found this without realizing that this had previously been an article, when Thryduulf told me that, I decided this was certainly not notable but subsequently realized how old this was and this could rank among the oldest WP hoaxes discovered to date. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Everybody. I just spotted this. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable; appears to be a hoax. -- Dane ^talk 01:32, 10 December 2016 (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.