Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody in Love

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, no consensus to delete this article. (NAC) RMHED 19:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody in Love[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Provided references do not support the notability of this yet-to-be-released single. Previously redirected to band. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JLS (band). Until earlier today it redirected there and was protected to avoid recreation. It was unprotected per a request at WP:RFPP where it was claimed a draft of the article could pass WP:NSONGS, but it doesn't, so I think all of today's actions should be reversed. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page can be expanded with some editing and research. The release date for the song is within a short period of time. The song is currently featured on the Radio 1 B-list playlist. The music video is being played on all music channels, and is currently number 1 of 4 Music. Surely this is enough individual media coverage? RM-Taylor (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then get to researching and expanding. In its current form, it does not warrant an article. Review WP:NSONGS and try to make it meet the requirements. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 10:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews and further references have been added. RM-Taylor (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/ Redirect This article will grow soon and become notable. I don't see who will benefit from its deletion right now, just so we can recreate it in 3 weeks? IJA (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it "becomes notable", it can have an article, until then a redirect is appropriate. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 10:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article cites "significant coverage" (6 links) in reliable sources. Josh Parris 03:55, 15 October 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.