Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbroken (Katharine McPhee 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 no consensus. It is of note that the mere existance of something does not make it suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbroken (Katharine McPhee album)

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

This is a future album supported by no reliable sources, therefore failing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS. The Billboard reference talks about her being signed to a new label and working on an album, but no mention of a name or a release date. The tommy2.net is a non-reliable source that has a different album name and different release date. The Amazon link with a release date is not enough to have an article about a future album. Aspects (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of information available about this album, so I think we should improve the article rather than delete it. --Maxime9232 (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verve, McPhee's label, is promoting it as is McPhee herself on her Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter pages. Entertainment shows E! News and Extra have covered it as well. I think there's more than enough information at this point to support creation of this article, assuming of course 6 weeks prior to release is ok with Wikipedia. Ducold (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was editing this page and was going to put more sources and information up, but I took a break and was going to come back and do some more work on it. I don't think it should be deleted. -GMANGRIFFG (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a page from Verve's website showing the album title, cover, and release date be considered a reliable source?: http://www.vervemusicgroup.com/artist/music/detail.aspx?pid=12071&aid=7353 144.51.89.67 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & . No coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously kidding me? Why is this article even being seriously considered for deletion? Katharine McPhee and her label Verve Forecast, may not have promoted Unbroken to the big news sources or MTV, but anyone who bothers to do some digging would know that that this album will be released on October 6th. If McPhee herself and the label have stated that this album is finished and will come out in October, that should be good enough to warrant keeping this page, as it will only come back if it's deleted. If you're looking for a reliable third party source, maybe this would work? [1] Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the album is less than 6 weeks from release and is starting to get publicity and is being promoted by the artist and label, it seems the initial reason for deletion has been overtaken by events. Perhaps the mods can just leave it be at this point. Ducold (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this debate overtaken by events? The album will be released in less than 5 weeks and the artist and label have talked about it and promoted it. More thorough discussion seems like overkill at this point. Ducold (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but it's kind of ridiculous that this is still being discussed. It's a sure fact that the album will be released in a few weeks, and promotion is slowly ramping up... someone please explain what further proof we need to prove this album exists. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Wickedlyperfect, the debate is still ongoing because a) very few editors have participated thus far and b) those editors who have participated are not in agreement, so there is no consensus so far. Regards, Skomorokh 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The album's existence isn't the issue. My big toe exists, but that doesn't mean there should be a Wikipedia article about it. A topic generally needs to be notable to warrant a Wikipedia article, and future albums generally are not considered notable until there is significant coverage in reliable sources. To some extent, I think this gets silly when articles are nominated for deletion a couple of days before the scheduled album release date, but there needs to be a line somewhere (hopefully enforced with some WP:COMMONSENSE) and in this case the release date is several weeks away still, making the nomination reasonable (in my view). But the key is to add reliable sources (i.e., not twitter, myspace, facebook, etc.) that demonstrate the album is already notable today, even though it hasn't been released yet. Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to keep Ducold (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Most of the references in the article right now are twitter and the like, which do not establish notability. There is a comment by an editor above that E!News and Extra have covered it, which I am willing to AGF on, and which would (I believe) establish sufficient notability if that coverage was "significant". But it would be preferablt to have references to the shows in the article itself. Rlendog (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rlendog, I think I'm understanding the issue better. Thank you for further enlightening. I knew the Wiki editors were tough on early articles for album (which is why I cautioned some fans who wanted to create the article months ago), but adherence to the standards is tougher than I realized. But I do have to ask, why is an artist's twitter and myspace posts and label webpages about an album release date not considered reliable enough? Even if media reports on it, the album could still be canceled, and in the end, the album information comes from the label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducold (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the notability guidelines, a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since anyone can twitter anything, or post what they want to MySpace pages, without independent validation, those generally do not qualify as reliable sources. I suppose that if someone posts about their own upcoming album on their own MySpace (or similar) page, that might be considered reliable, but then it is definitely not "independent of the subject", and so cannot be used to establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reliable sources Facha93 (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2009 (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.