Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We'll Be Coming Back

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 Keep - meeting WP:N is a persuasive argument in the absence of any special circumstances. Topical guidelines in general supplement N, they don't superseed it. Wily D 08:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll Be Coming Back

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC Nouniquenames (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initially I suspected this was an obvious deletion candidate, but I'm seeing quite a few interesting sources in a GNews search making me believe that sources will improve significantly in a couple of weeks, so deletion seems unnecessary. Example sources showing suitable impact:

--Fæ (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Fae. Also, http://www.capitalfm.com/artists/calvin-harris/videos/well-be-coming-back-off/. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That sources may or will improve is not a valid keep rationale. WP:DEADLINE --Nouniquenames (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be missing the point of the essay you link to, it states "We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established." To me this seems to make the opposite case that articles should not be deleted for poor sourcing when there is a prospect of near future improvement. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misunderstand what I was pointing out. The essay also states "creating an article without establishing the basis of the content and its significance is a bad idea." That it will become notable is covered under WP:CRYSTALBALL as invalid keep rationale. Future improvement possibility sounds like it might fall under WP:LOSE. None of the sources are reliable per WP:RS. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The article is to be deleted or not on its merits as it stands, not how it may be in a few weeks. If there is something to be added now to improve it, that would be helpful toward keeping it. That it may be better in the future does not help overcome these issues in the mean time. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TOOSOON. The sources are not significant enough to hang an article on yet. The information will be there if a redirect is maintained — the redirect can be undone once more sourcing is available. Don't worry, Hammy Whammy won't harm your pwecious widdle article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Wikipedia is not a place for announcements and a single by a notable musician is not by itself reason for a standalone article.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some references. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:35, 10 July 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} 02:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until (if) it meets WP:NSONGS, WP:GNG etc. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a promo site, a fansite, a listing for every song or single released... and certainly not a "my-favourite-artist-has more-articles-than-your-favourite-artist" site. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It will have charted by next Sunday and you will have to make a new page so may as well keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.187.93 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 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.