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. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rehyn[edit]

Rehyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Promotional article about a "young and inspired" singer. There is evidently a campaign going on: the same peacocky prose is all over the internet - a Google search finds the identical text in a dozen different places, so that it is hard to know where this is a copyvio from. The article could be de-peacocked and de-copyvio-ed, but beneath the hype what it amounts to is, she has released one EP and got some reviews in Milwaukee papers and a couple of fan-sites. This is not notable per WP:BAND. She may go on to become notable, and then an article would be appropriate, but for now Wikipedia should not be part of her publicity campaign. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why this subject has multiple entries/articles is because the one got deleted by TexasAndroid while I was still posting it. I made a new one and it didn't get tagged until I mentioned I made a new one to TexasAndroid. I am new at this and TexasAndroid apparently removed the block on the Rehyn and redirected Rehyn (Ren) to the Rehyn article.

I have looked at two other artist articles on this site to use as examples. They are Nothern Room and Edward Bell. I followed those templates to write Rehyn's article and I don't see how they are any more successful then her. You could make the the same argument for the articles on Northern Room and Edward Bell. I thought I was being neutral in pointing out only facts on the subject. If someone would like to help get this article where it needs to be, please help. I will find out more about her birth date etc.--Funtup (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Unless more sources can be shown to indicate notability, and not reviews in local papers, I am now thinking that this falls a bit short of the notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over several articles in the music/band section now and I would questions acticles on Lights Action, Northern Room, Edward Bell, The Alps (band), etc... I could probably make the same delete case for 50 band articles on this site based on the delete case for the Rehyn article. Will the articles from these bands be deleted as well? Maybe a general standard should be set because from the examples that I've pointed out, I really don't how you can argue one article being deleted from the next.--Funtup (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, that is the easy way to get around my argument while not answering with a strong rebuttal. Rehyn does have a notable licensing deal with MTV, Oxygen and E! networks. It's only a matter of time until you hear one of her tracks on one of those network shows. She has also had review from California.^[1] She also has a write up from TAXI (A&R) but it's no longer online. I do have a hard copy written by Craig Streaman, Manager A & R from TAXI (A&R). When you hit the itunes link, her tracks are being downloaded/popular level is high. You probably thought the same thing with Meiko when she first started.--Funtup (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an interview with site in the UK: http://www.piewatch.co.uk/2009/05/rehyn/ That's not a local newspaper.--Funtup (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply to your remarks higher up: the fact that the article was created more than once here in Wikipedia is not a problem, what I meant was that the Google link above shows that the identical same fluff about a "unique balance between a timeless lyrically driven base" etc is found word-for-word the same on soundtrack.mtv.com, eventful.com, ourstage.com, thesixtyone.com, myspace.com, shankhall.com, last.fm, cdbaby.com, bebo.com, famecast.com. That's what I mean by a promotion campaign going on; and when a new editor pops up repeating the same words here, it looks like part of the campaign, and Wikipedia dislikes, in fact refuses, to be used for promotion.

It is also a problem because (a) those words must be copyright to someone and (b) words like "unique" "inspired" "timeless" "soulful" are peacock terms (click that link) - ad-speak, subjective praise suitable for PR puff pieces or record sleeves but not for an encyclopedia.

The words could be rewritten, the real problem is that she doesn't (yet) meet Wikipedia's requirements as set out in WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. As regards the other articles you cite, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an easy way out: it explains the principle that the existence of some doubtful articles is not to be taken as an excuse for relaxing standards and admitting more. Finally, for your "it's only a matter of time" argument, read WP:UPANDCOMING. I'm sorry to give you so many links to policies, but we have these arguments over and over, and it saves writing it all out each time. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Aside from the lack of coverage to establish notability, this article is promotional, and also a possible copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 28 May 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.