Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Coast Time


 * 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   merge to Michelle Branch. Actually I'm closing this as a merge. There is also an article for the single on the album already. SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

West Coast Time

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Redirect declined. Not a peep has been said about this album since a single tweet from the singer in December. We're only 17 days away from Spring ending, and there's still no sign that this album will be released — no reliable sources have said anything on it since 2011! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It meets the relevant notability criteria, and an album being delayed does not strip it of its notability.  (In fact, delays can sometimes be one of the reasons an unreleased album becomes notable.  While I don't think West Coast Time is yet in the leagues of Extraordinary Machine, it may be heading there...)  There was a "peep" in March, which specifically mentioned the album's delays.  (You could debate the Huffington Post as a reliable source in contentious cases, but I think it's reasonably reliable for sourcing something like this.)  The point is that there are reliable sources (Billboard, among others) and the existence and details of the album has been confirmed by the record label.   user: j  (talk)  22:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources which date from 2011, and show absolutely no progress to this point. The Huffington Post source does not count, as it doesn't present anything beyond regurgitation of the 2011 sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability criteria for albums do not require a record label to update us on the progress of an album's release in the event of delays. There's also this piece in Angelino from February which mentions the album is scheduled for release this spring.  You've gone from claiming there hasn't been a "peep" about the album in two years to writing off several "peeps" as "regurgitation."  An album with reliable sources and a label-confirmed title, tracklisting, cover art, a released single, and scheduled release — even if delayed — meets our notability criteria, plain and simple.  Your argument amounts to: "It was notable a few months ago, but it isn't now since it's probably been delayed again."  Notability doesn't expire.   user: j  (talk)  00:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you properly typify the HuffPo and Angelino coverage as "peeps," because both are, again, the briefest of mentions in articles that are about the singer, not the unreleased album. TPH's argument is coherent. We have coverage from 2011 of an album that was supposed to come out in 2011. That 2011 album never materialized. We now have "peeps" in 2013 that promise an album in spring. I note that it is currently summer. The notability criteria for albums allows for coverage of unreleased albums for a "very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects", with "title, track listing and release date" all confirmed. At the very least, no release date has been confirmed, and there is no evidence at all that this is an "exceptionally high-profile project" if the best current (i.e. non-assumptive of a 2011 release) coverage anyone can find are one-sentence mentions in HuffPo and Angelino. Also, out of curiosity, where did the label confirm the title, tracklisting, and cover art? The label link in the article is for the single. I don't see any sourcing for the tracklisting and cover art. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. (e/c) I think this is arguably borderline -- there was some coverage of the album in production in 2011 -- but there's really not been any coverage of it since. The March '13 HuffPo article is not about this album. It is a sort of "where the heck is Michelle Branch" article, and devotes a one sentence mention to the album. The rest of the recent sourcing are literally tweets from Michelle Branch herself. What is clear to me is that this is nowhere near an Extraordinary Machine or Chinese Democracy situation (the latter of which is mentioned in the relevant notability criterium as an example of an unreleased record that was clearly already notable). The former had quite a bit of coverage due to the (now apparently false) suspicion that it was intentionally being withheld by Fiona Apple's label, and the latter is a classic case of an album simply taking forever to appear. This album being nothing like those two situations (yet), I think this has to be a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  user: j  (talk)  00:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  user: j  (talk)  00:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Michelle Branch. No tracklisting or upcoming release date has been confirmed, and the section within the artist's main page appears more detailed and better sourced than the album article, otherwise I would have suggested a merge. There is a fair amount of information about the album from multiple reliable sources (e.g., in chronological order, ), so it meets WP:GNG, but I'm not convinced that this meets the "exceptionally high-profile project" standard for unreleased albums outlined in WP:NALBUMS.  Gong   show  02:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Michelle Branch to preserve the article. Koala15 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Best option right now, does not meet N on its own pre-release, and a redirect is easily converted back to article format when it is released. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2013 (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.