Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Have It All (Jesse McCartney 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 delete until such time that the album is released, or coverage of the album rises to the level required by the "Unreleased material" section of WP:NALBUMS. -Scottywong | spout _ 17:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have It All (Jesse McCartney album)

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

Album was originally set for release in December 2010. Everything about the album has most likely changed since then; as it is now June 2012. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No set release date. Statυs ≠ 23:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album was recorded so the music exists, we have a confirmed tracklisting and cover art, and we have sufficient detail about it for an article. Whether or not it gets released in the form described in the article doesn't matter - it's a notable unreleased album.--Michig (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe is a notable unreleased album, but when were the cover and the traclisting released? If they are in the course from December 2010-2012 they will certainly change. Plus there is not a confirmed date meaning it can be further re-schedule for 2013. Delete for the time and recreate after those information leaks. — Tomica (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because vaporware can be notable too. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you but I think cases where vaporware is notable tend to have significantly more coverage and coverage about its vapor-ness. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the track listing was released by Billboard in 2010, but the album did not materialise. Promises of a future release are only cited to primary sources i.e. McCartney himself on various social media. Does not meet WP:GNG but meets WP:TOOSOON. The rumours are already in the Jesse McCartney article so no need to merge. Sionk (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NALBUM is explicitly clear that unreleased material requires "significant" independent coverage and that unreleased material will only meet that criteria in "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects". This is not an exceptionally high-profile project, and there is no significant independent coverage. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS - 'Unreleased material is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.' Two articles by the same author (and self-published material) doesn't meet the requirement for significant coverage.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Album fails WP:NALBUM. From what I can find (as others have), the album was announced but never released. I won't echo what others have said but can add by saying that a Google News search produces no significant, independent, and reliable coverage and Google News archive search produces no new coverage besides what's already in the article or regurgitation of apparently false non-independent information. In other words, even though the sources that published the information may be reliable, the information they were covering was not. At most, that should be covered but not in its own article and since the rumors are already covered in the Jesse McCartney article, the article should be deleted.OlYeller21^Talktome 22:30, 27 June 2012 (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.