Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nashville Sessions


 * 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. v/r - TP 20:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Nashville Sessions

 * – ( View AfD View log )

EP doesn't actually seem to exist. &mdash;Kww(talk) 20:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, possible hoax? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. EP does appear to exist. Googling "Drake Bell Nashville Sessions" returns youtube results, torrents, file sharing and this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100906124539AAnkiNA TheMadBaron (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "It exists" is not a reason to keep. And if the best you can find is a torrent link and Yahoo! answers, it's clearly failing the verifiability policy. You can't source a torrent, I'm pretty sure that's kinda not legal. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can certainly find all kinds of torrents and people talking about whether it exists, but I can't find a single source indicating that an EP was released in any format.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You could try, like, looking.... http://www.last.fm/music/Drake+Bell/The+Nashville+Sessions TheMadBaron (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the "We don't have any information on this album" line. Note the empty result from the "buy it" link. Note that the cover image was uploaded by a pseudonymous user name "American Toxic". Perhaps you could try, like, critical evaluation of sources ...&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm now giving up trying to provide a verifiable source. But I must ask you this; if you can purportedly download an EP (legally or otherwise), if songs purportedly from that EP are on Youtube, if chords purportedly from a song purportedly on the purported EP are on a guitar website, if the artist is purportedly interviewed just prior to the EP's purported release date talking about the EP he's purportedly working on, if the purported EP has its own Facebook page, if a Google search for the purported EP brings up more hits than you can shake a stick at, then do you still want to maintain that it doesn't actually seem to exist? That it's possibly a hoax? "It exists" is, indeed, not a reason to keep an article about it. However, given the weight of the evidence, I think we would be wise to proceed to debate its notability on the assumption that it does, at least, exist. If it turns out that it doesn't exist, then I'm definitely voting to keep the article on the grounds that it is, quite notably, the. best. hoax. ever. TheMadBaron (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the Facebook page only has 4 fans, and consists of a copy of the Wikipedia article. Note that the original creation contained links to another album. I'd be willing to bet that the Facebook page was created as a result of our article. I will admit that it's possible that there was a bootleg of some kind under this name, but I don't think it ever was a legitimate EP. I'll go so far out on a limb as to say that this is the natural consequence of having a hoax about a Nickelodeon star persist undetected on Wikipedia for 14 months. There's still a lot of sites out there that claim that "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" was directed by the director of "Deep Throat", and that's a direct result of a Wikipedia hoax.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Did The Beatles ever even exist? Is reality itself a wiki hoax? All the citations supposedly demonstrating the existence of the world are self referential....we should probably delete it. Still, I find it hard to believe that the purported EP's entire web presence can be a result of a wikipedia hoax. For one thing, the first Google hit is a YouTube vid uploaded on May 6, 2009, a year earlier than the first Wikipedia entry. And I have to ask, if these songs aren't from the purported EP, then where are they from? TheMadBaron (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I stated that it's possible that there was a bootleg of some kind under this name. Can't find sources for that either, but seems more likely than an officially produced EP has left no trace on any reliable site while spawning this many torrents and YouTube clips.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it is more likely an early, independent release by an artist who has discontinued its official distribution. That said, I will concede that it is possible that the Nashville Sessions is a bootleg, in which case the article should reflect that. Regardless, the collection is obviously extant, and if these are original songs by a notable artist, and if those songs don't appear on any other collection, then IMHO the article should remain whether it's a bootleg or not. TheMadBaron (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "It exists" is not a reason to have an article. What about verifying the info? You can't use YouTube links or torrents as a source on wikipedia. And does notability mean nothing to you? It's not inherited, you know. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I refer you to my earlier comments. I have already agreed that agreed that "It exists" is not a reason to have an article. I said "I think we would be wise to proceed to debate its notability on the assumption that it does, at least, exist." This is the first time you've mentioned notability. Up until now, the only reason given in favour of deletion is that the EP doesn't actually seem to exist, and so I have only argued that it does. I will be happy to debate its notability if you are happy to concede that it seems to exist. I'm not going to argue for the notability of something which you guys think doesn't exist, because that would be futile. As for verifying the info, the article is clearly in need of references, and it has been tagged as such. Is that, in itself, a reason for deletion? If not, what is your reason? TheMadBaron (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An inability to find any information about a topic in reliable sources is adequate reason for deletion, yes. And I do still maintain that no EP by the name of "Nashville Sessions" seems to exist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask whether an inability to find any information about a topic in reliable sources is adequate reason for deletion. What I asked was, is the fact that an article lacks references a reason for deletion in itself? If so, there are quite a lot of articles which should be deleted. I don't think it has been established that we are unable to find any information about the topic in reliable sources. It's a topic somewhat obscured by an awful lot of data in sources which are not, by WP standards, reliable, but that doesn't mean that reliable information about the topic doesn't exist, just that it might take a while to find it. I'm disturbed to hear that you still maintain that no EP by the name of "Nashville Sessions" seems to exist; I'm either a) listening to it right now, or b) hallucinating. Before I panic, can you cite a reliable source to prove that you exist? TheMadBaron (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No references currently in an article? Not a reason to delete. No reliable sources to be found after a diligent search? Yes, that's a reason to delete. There's no verifiable content for the article. I didn't nominate this thing after a few seconds of searching, I looked hard enough to convince myself that there was nothing to be found. You downloaded a collection of songs from an illegal downloading site: that doesn't say that there is an EP by this name.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, a couple of points here. 1) The references tag was put on the article today. I think you have to give people a chance before you go removing articles lacking reliable references. We have articles tagged as such since February 2005. I do believe that you did conduct a diligent search, but I won't be convinced that there are no verifiable sources showing the EP's existence until every single Google page full of hits have been scrutinized, and I can't believe that you have done that, because there are scores of them, which is why I'm inclined to believe that the EP exists. Well, that and the fact that I've heard it, and it's quite good. 2) The site I downloaded the EP from isn't illegal, though the act of uploading/downloading copyrighted material might be..... are you seriously contending that it is illegal to fileshare an EP that doesn't exist? Because, if you can cite a reliable source showing someone claiming copyright control of these songs, I'd really, really, really like to see it. TheMadBaron (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The picture revealed by my own search, if anyone cares, is of a release (possibly download only) in 2008 (or 2007) by California Records (which might well be the artist's own venture), distributed via Amie Street (which basically gave songs away until they proved popular enough to sell them cheap) but discontinued after Amazon's takeover. The EP's notability is obviously debatable, but I can see no reason at all to believe that this is an elaborate hoax. TheMadBaron (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The bottom line for me is that I'm finding zero coverage in reliable sources for this EP; until/unless such coverage is presented, it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.  Gongshow  Talk 21:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for citing an actual reason for deletion per Wikipedia policy. I would ask that the debate be kept open for at least 24 hours while I verify your findings. TheMadBaron (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't panic: these discussions stay open for a week. The reason we have them is because the nominator might have missed something that other people can find.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing verifiability. With no reliable sources to verify any of the information, the fundamental policy of verifiability is not satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2011 (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.