Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRENN (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

WRENN
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * * Strong Keep - While this page is currently nominated for delation due to the fact a similar article had been posted months prior, upon reviewing the previous deletion discussion which came to an end on May 17th, 2016, one can see the reasoning behind the deletion was arguably a case of WP:TOOSOON due to the fact the articles about this subject were not as reputable as they needed to be in order for the page to remain in the database and the largest reason for keeping the page in the last discussion was to help establish a differentiation between two artists who both were going by the same name (it was established that neither were notable and therefore it was not Wikipedia's job to help differentiate the two). Yet, upon further observation the revised (and now current) version of this page does not mention that dispute, and instead stands on it's own, with a firm backing of reputable sources such as Billboard, Alternative Press (music magazine), and The Fader; therefore showing it no longer qualifies for deletion under the case of WP:TOOSOON. With the information stated above, as well of proof of two nationwide tours, features in prominent publications, and multiple musical appearances on TV shows airing on prime time networks (see: Fox, The CW, Showtime), it is obvious to see the previous reason for the deletion no longer applies and thus WRENN arguably should stay in the Wikipedia database. V.Putnam (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Struck !vote of blocked sockmaster. --Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * *Keep - The write-up and sources provided convince me there is notability here, as well as qualifying for significance under WP:NMUSIC. It's apparent the reason for previous deletion had been WP:TOOSOON, yet these issues have fixed since last posting. AdityaBahl (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Struck !vote of blocked sock. --Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * AdityaBahl is a ✅ sock of V.Putnam. See Sockpuppet investigations/V.Putnam.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Reviews are not widespread, in-depth coverage. WP is not a publicity site. WP:WWIN. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TOOSOON, article subject needs patience, so far the references indicate existence rather than notability. The appearances in Billboard, Alternative Press, Fader, etc. are merely announcements of releases with linked video--pretty standard stuff these days. It does not represent significant coverage that would convey notability at the present time. I agree that at this point a wikipedia page for this subject is essentially promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Bands often get a keep with more spurious coverage than this, but I don't think there's enough yet. The WP:NMUSIC guidelines are outdated for new artists, and only people with a major understanding of the nuances of music publicity are really likely to understand that almost anybody willing to pay for a PR representative will be covered by some notable sites, maybe even the odd newspaper. For me, if an artist isn't being interviewed and given features, the press isn't enough. This is just new video/stream spam, par for the course as Shelby above points out. KaisaL (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough coverage, and just hasn't done enough yet to justify an article. The songs in TV shows are a bit of a claim to notability, but I don't feel there is enough for an article yet. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable musician. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:59, 30 March 2017 (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.