Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live at the Chapel


 * 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) 03:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Live at the Chapel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unreliable sources (one is a blog; the other a photo gallery) given. A search engine search gives no sources that it was a legitimate released recording. Yves (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the one source was a blog, however, the other source was a reliable Australian website of the Chapel, where, as stated in my article, Lady Gaga performed. I also used a search engine (Google Images) and found three different websites where the album artwork was shown. If you think I'm a liar, stick it in your juice box and suck it. - EricRox95, writer of "Live at the Chapel" -


 * Hi there. First of all, I would like to remind you to sign your posts with date and time using four tildes ( ~ ). Second, it is not denied that she ever performed there. What is not in the reference, however, is that a legitimate recording was produced and released, and notability of the supposed recording is not given. Your point about the search for album artwork is moot as there have been many bootleg records made for this artist. Yves (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —Yves (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete First of all, the article looks like it was just created two revisions ago, as if the AfD tagger didn't give the creator more than half an hour to add references. However, the article's already about two weeks old and is in rather sad shape. That's not usually worth an AfD, except for two factors: refs and notability.
 * The article has two refs right now: one is a blog, apparently anonymous or pseudonymous, written in Spanish, and only lists the work along with every other thing Gaga's ever done. The other ref is even more useless, as it not only makes no statement about notability, it doesn't even tell us anything about the album in question; it's just a couple dozen photos of Gaga. In fact, this ref offers so little, I don't understand why it's listed in the article; none of the content appears to depend on the second ref.
 * The refs provide no indication about notability. No awards are mentioned. Nobody, well-known or hopelessly obscure, discusses the work. No other artists are shown to be influenced by the album. There is no indication of charting. All I've really learned from this four-sentence article and the refs provided after two weeks is that the recording exists, has a name, came out in 2009, and is a five-song "album" about 18 minutes in length.
 * Kill it. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The first reference not only lists everything Gaga's ever done, but half of these alleged recording are bootlegs, with distribution through torrent sites and forums, as an online search can show. Neither the artist's official website's discography page nor the websites of the record labels have this recording. Yves (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that, Yves, but it's rather irrelevant to me, as I'm already entirely on the side of article deletion (although for all I know it may qualify for speedy deletion based on the bootleg issue). I can find only one thing that speaks toward keeping the article, and that is merely that the artist is notable. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going to list it for speedy deletion, but Template:Db-a9 can only be used if the artist's article does not exist, like you said. Yves (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going to list it for speedy deletion, but Template:Db-a9 can only be used if the artist's article does not exist, like you said. Yves (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, apparently no sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete (ec) fails WP:NALBUM. It does not appear to be an official release and the article is poorly sources. I can't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK just because you bozos can't find a "reliable" source stating that it was recorded doesn't mean it wasn't. And, come on. Did you even look at the link for the album artwork? It does not look fan made. And, artists usually release an album of the recordings from a live session or concert, but Lady Gaga has done many famous live sessions and no one has heard of its release until I posted this. Plus, live albums are not usually that long. They only include a few songs that the artist sang. So, to all those who sat "Kill the article", I say you suck and I hate you. -EricRox95, author of "Live at the Chapel"-
 * "It does not look fan made": not a valid argument and.
 * "no one has heard of its release until I posted this.": the perfect reason for deletion (no WP:NOTABILITY)
 * "live albums are not usually that long": and this point isn't even important. Yves (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make it sound important you jackass! The point is I discover the truth and I tell people about it. If you think I'm a liar, then go to Hell! -EricRox95- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericrox95 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, when you make an article, you have to establish its notability and verify it with reliable sources. Which you didn't do. That is why editors critique the sources, we also look for others just in case during an AfD. We are not that bad of people.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken if you think Wikipedia is about truth; it isn't (it's about verifiability). Yves (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * EricRox95, calling someone a jackass would generally be considered a personal attack, and those are frowned on around these parts. Would you consider striking that part of your comment as a gesture of good faith? And for what it's worth, I believe Yvesnimmo and NortyNort are entirely correct in their interpretation--what is needed in this case is significant coverage in reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines. That you know something to be true is largely irrelevant--if, say, you and I were standing in the middle of DC and saw a dozen flying saucers land on the white house lawn, we could not put up an article about it until the incident was reported in reliable sources. Even Wikipedia is not considered reliable, according to its own rules. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-existent album. And Eric, I advise you stop the personal attacks before you are blocked. – Chase  ( talk ) 00:34, 14 October 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.