[Ben]

Yeah, ok. Let me just clarify a bit. No need to respond, you probably already get it, but just for the record...

If 50/60 was just a leaked mp3, I'd agree. Like I do about the cover. Even though I think the image is at least a (real) draft, I agree that it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia.

But ok, first there's 50/60 the track. Then there's various primary source statements about it, though they probably wouldn't pass Wiki's standards for credible sources. Third are comments on the author's Myspace. We could argue if it's really him, but now we're starting to split hairs.

Finally, on top of all that we have the song's citable coverage in magazines, online articles, and even television. Yes they could be wrong, and we know just repeating prior information. But one of my first points was that anything, even official statements, can be inaccurate too. So I think we're well past the practical safe point for inclusion of information on a site like Wikipedia.

If we want to get really technical about it, the page could just be edited to say something like "50/60 is reported to be another track". Even if the song itself is debatable, the fact that it has been reported on is not.