Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themis Band


 * 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. Most of the "keep" arguments seem to be based on WP:ILIKEIT. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Themis (Band)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable music group. Extensive references refer to the Wiccan religion, not to the Themis group itself. Related article deleted through separate deletion discussion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The notability of this article has to do with the religion having a public entity advancing its beliefs. This is new for Wicca. Maybe I have titled the article wrongly. People keep bashing this issue around but the debate has centred on a musical band and not the fact that there is a music project done by some Wicca priests which significantly advances the concept of Wicca and gives Wicca greater notability and acceptance. We are talking about a religion wherein women who practiced homeopathy and herbal remedies were burned at the stake. Today a musical ensemble promotes Wicca openly for what it is: a nature based pagan religion. That's notable. There are no Wiccan Churches, Popes, Annual General Meetings; Ecclesiastical Conferences but there is a Music Band that promotes Wicca openly, widely, and in many different ways. Katie alsop (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — Katie alsop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Comment Actually, there are any number of public entities promoting Wicca and other new age pagan and naturistic belief systems, as this list demonstrates. The fact that this band openly espouses this religion does NOT make them notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I think I can't let you away with that. ;-) I checked your reference and accordingly there has been nothing in the last decade and mostly nothing in the past century that as you say are "[any number of public entities] promoting Wicca" and The fact that this band openly espouses this religion does NOT make them notable. -- it DOES make them notable to a Wiccan or a person who studies or just follows evolving religions. I think the band is notable regardless. Anyway, thanks very much for your input. Katie alsop (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added some references. Themis is Opening the Canadian Spirit of The Earth Festival and the Canadian Woodstock Festival in 2009 and I have added at least one link in that regard. These are very big Canadian National events. I think it is notable that a Wicca Rock band is good enough that it has been chosen for a Rock For Sick Kids Benefit and CD (March 8 performance, release date May 8); Woodstock 2009 (July 31 to August 2); and The Canadian Spirits of The Earth Festival July 7 through 12), the former two being exclusively Rock events and the latter being a Pagan festival.
 * Notability

The noteworthyness of this article has to do with the fact that it tells of a musical group which are the most outspoken public leadership entities for a modern, recently popular religion: a sort of pied piper in a gypsy vein. It will never be a huge commercial success: there aren't that many Wiccans in the world and most Wiccans seem to keep their religion a secret.

Wicca is heretofore a silent, individual and underground religion. In most religions the obviously visible aspect is a person (i.e.: a pope or evangelist), a church building or some other traditional centre point of a religion. This article talks about an emergence of an energetic, boisterous msuic that focuses on teaching the simpler points about Wicca.

Also the article speaks of a 'leader' that takes the religion in a somewhat new direction but along the lines of its most popular threads like: ecology; uncomplicated worship; eclectic choices; non-patriarchal (statistics indicate 70% female 30% male membership) aspects; and its more modern theology. I like it for its slant toward what is really ecofeminism and would like to see more of that aspect in the article as well.

I am going to try to do a little ( more and better ) work on this in the coming week. Cheers Katie alsop (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Another factor I just noticed on the notability question is that in 2009, in addition to being on the slate for two major Canadian national music events (Canadian Woodstock Festival and Canadian Spirit of the Earth Festival) Themis is also in the on-air rotation of Sirius Satellite on channel 86. Katie alsop (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep


 * Keep *I just read the discussion page on "Themis Music" that WikiDan61 referred to and that looks to me to be a "Keep" in conclusion. Notwithstanding the ambiguity on that discussion page, since Katie alsop has adduced new information for 2009 inasmuch as the band is notable as a participant in two major national concerts (in Canada) and is on the playlist of a significant radio station (CBC on satelite radio) the reliable sources are ok and the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied three times over in 2009, the new information allows KEEP Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * I wonder if Nymphetamine labyrinth would mind editing the page to add the reference on Sat Radio. I don't know the syntax for doing that. Thanks Katie alsop (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that has already tried to add a page on this topic previously (as deduced from the history of User Talk:Nymphetamine labyrinth).  I smell a sock.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The debate about this page goes back well over a year. All I am saying here is that in a year, things have changed notably and the band has become notable whereas according to Wikipedia it may not have been a year ago. If the Themis band's success continues, it will eventually become notable within one ore more of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Question: has that time come? I say yes, perhaps it has. If you disagree, say so specifically, but your calling people names adds nothing. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I also am in favour of keeping this page on Wikipedia. I agree with a lot of the arguments already presented which share my view, so I won;t be redundant. I am not seeing any good arguments for deleting.. maybe instead of negativity we can all put our heads together. Those who have issues, bring them forward and let's all contribute to making it better. I think this is what Wikipedia is all about. Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * — Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * CHALLENGE - CONFLICT OF INTEREST - A quick look at Portrait of the Dead Countess's user page history (particularly, her first version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Portrait_of_the_Dead_Countess&oldid=205438713 shows that she is a member of this band. A vote on the notability of this article is clearly a conflict of interest.Taniwha (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment was also involved in the previous AfD debate for this article.  As at the previous discussion, the arguments to keep the article were more based on the supposed notability of a Wiccan band based on the popularity of Wicca itself rather than the ACTUAL notability of THIS band as demonstrated by the criteria of WP:MUSIC.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "based on the popularity of Wicca itself" ?? This religion, Wicca, my religion, is uncommon enough to be passed over by most, and common enough to scare the proverbial "Hell" out of those who fear any change (and have such a thing as "Hell" to be scared out of.) Wiccans are everywhere, and if the idea of a non-Christian babysitter or doctor frightens you, then be frightened. If the notability of a band has to do with it's message, so be it. In this case however, the notability is hinged upon its participation in a couple of national concerts in '09 and its inclusion on significant radio play lists. Maybe not exclusive, Themis is notable on its own irrespective of its message ideology. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Please do not make this discussion an argument over Wicca. Wicca does not scare me, nor should it scare anyone who has an understanding beyond simple superstitions.  However, this discussion is about the notability of THIS particular band, which has not been demonstrated.  The "major" music festival of which mention has been made (Canadian Woodstock) consists of a collection of unknown bands playing 20 minute sets over the course of a weekend.  The event's own website describes it as "Canadian Bands that are up and coming talents that need to be recognized" -- i.e. not yet notable.  The event MAY be notable, but each of its individual participants is not necessarily so.  Of the 38 signed acts, only one (Basia Lyjak) has a Wikipedia page, and that one is of doubtful notability itself. The fact is there is not a single reference on the Themis page that asserts the notability of this band to the standards of WP:MUSIC.  Most of the references are primary sources, from the band's own website, or are unrelated references about the Wiccan religion, not about the band itself.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I remember working on and discussing a similar article. Notability has now nudged over on the plus side. But the article needs work. Bean Mouse 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you say specifically which elements of the article are properly referenced (or could be properly referenced) and indicate notability? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I humbly suggest that the users involved in this discussion may not be entirely neutral on the topic.,  and  have all been extensively involved in articles about Wicca music and Themis music which have all attempted to promote this band.  Mobrien9279 and Portrait... also claim a direct relationship with the band Themis, by claiming ownership of the Themis logo.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I am Wiccan. I have a bias and interest in anything Wicca and cannot be considered neutral on matters Wicca. I have my own beliefs which may differ from even other Wiccans so if religious neutrality is necessary to be involved in Wikipedia I must bow out. Sorry. I did not know. Here in Sweden the students I am with don't usually consider such things but just go ahead and write freely what we think from our own personal perspectives. What was I thinking? :-) Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Neutrality is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Articles are expected to be fair and neutral. That is not to say that articles about Wicca should be eliminated, for surely Wicca is a notable religious movement.  And if there is a Wiccan music tradition building, similar to the Christian music tradition, and if this tradition has reached a point of notability (as demonstrated in reliable sources) then it should be written about.  HOWEVER, this discussion is NOT about Wicca, and it is NOT about Wiccan music.  It is about a single band, and that single band has NOT reached the level of notability that would rate a Wikipedia article.  I ask you all to PLEASE not make this a discussion about Wicca, but ONLY about a single band.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Response The article is fair and neutral. The band is notable having satisfied at least three of the conditions set out in the WP:MUSIC criteria and still rises above that for other reasosns as well. The band is new (2007) but a rising star. I submit that the WP:MUSIC has been met whereas at the time of a previous article it might not have been at the level of WP:MUSIC.
 * Regarding PLEASE not make this a discussion about Wicca, I can agree with that except to say that because the band is a Wiccan band and the discussion and article attracted attention from Wiccans from at least three countries, the common thread being people interested in things Wicca, the topic will come up. Anyway, if the result is delete, I will put the article on hold and come back again another day as the band becomes more and more "notable". That has happened already once. Some of the authors of the first article supported my attempt. So what? Themis says it is an "Underground Wicca Rock Band" and some people wish it had more "mainstream" visibilty. That visibility and achievement is happening. WP:MUSIC is met! Cheers (and thanks for the input WikiDan61. Katie alsop (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete No claim of notability made or possible. Fails WP:MUSIC comprehensively. Band has yet to release a single album on a notable label, no significant coverage whatsoever in reliable third-party media. Article has been repeatedly deleted and recreated by sole-purpose users. In fact, I was under the impression that it had been salted, though am happy to admit if I was wrong. In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that I have been party to previous AfDs concerning this article and received this response. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I dare say 'speedy delete' (criterion A7) doesn't apply and your suggestion contradicts a process underway. There is a justified claim of significance with apparent reason. Also I checked WP:MUSIC and see several areas of notability. I agree that they are marginal but it doesn't 'fail'. Also please note that the failure to meet any of the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors. Katie alsop (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Apologies for any confusion. The speedy suggestion was not for criterion A7 but for criterion G4, as the material is almost exclusively recreated, previously deleted material; specifically material that has been deleted on multiple occasions in the past. Further up this discussion it has been claimed that in the past year the band has become notable, according to WP:MUSIC standards. This is untrue. The band is not signed. They have yet to release a single record. They have, like many Myspace bands, played some gigs, but none of them have received any significant coverage in independent, third-party sources. They claim to be playing at two major Canadian musical festivals; neither of these events is in fact a major musical event, and as the events have not even happened yet, claiming notability on this front would contravene WP:CRYSTAL even if they were sufficiently notable events. Further to this (and I want to stress that I am assuming good faith), I believe that it is important that at least two of the above posters (and heavy contributors to the article in question) are members of the band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only Portrait of the Dead Countess is a member of the band Themis.Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * More on Blackmetalbaz's raising the  (Blackmetalbaz vs this person) emotional exchange That's more passion than I can summon up for this debate. I imagine the precursor emotional exchanges to  this were quite lively and I can't believe that there was none of the same ilk in the exchange from both sides. Religion does evoke strong feelings. Calm down.
 * I believe that this article's subject is NOW worthy of Wikipedia note even if it wasn't previously. If it isn't now, current trends considered, it will be. I'll be back, or somebody else will. I don't think the argument "we deleted it before so we should delete it again" is valid. Let's came back to this after the holidays. Happy days of Pesach; Happy Easter and blessed be -Katie. Katie alsop (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Whilst AfD is not really the place to discuss personal Wikipedia grievances, I would just like to state for the record that in fact the above comment was not provoked in any way by something I had said to the anon IP. There were no emotional exchanges to the best of my (and the archives') recollection, although if I have said anything rude or inappropriate I apologise unreservedly; feel free to point any out. This is not a religious issue; it is purely about the WP:MUSIC notability of Themis. I would also like to voice a concern about the phrase "I'll be back, or somebody else will." Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I read that too. Don't be concerned. Katie is not "The Terminator". Many articles that are initially deleted on Wikipedia come back as better ones. That's how I read it. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Fear not, I do not believe that Katie is The Terminator. It is more a concern that this page is going to get recreated and recreated, despite the fact that they are not even signed, until someone actually re-salts it. As I said earlier, I thought this had already been done. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "I'll be back or someone else will"--I think that refers to socks. I have the feeling that the waters of this AfD are intentionally muddied by all-too lengthy expostulations on religion and accusations of intolerance. Alsop, you told an editor to "calm down" and "proved" their excited state by some diatribe someone else addressed to that editor. That is a classic example of blaming the victim. Some idiot yells an insult, and the person who is insulted must have done something wrong to set that off? Come on. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete This was deleted before as Themis_music and is hardly more important or notable now. Taniwha (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifics Please and is hardly more important or notable now. Why is the new information not notable. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The addition of a few gigs doesn't really make this band more notable. A few singles and self-release albums also do not make this band notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Their choice of religion does not make them notable enough for an article, either, I'm sorry.


 * Comment - I moved the page to Themis (Band) per WP:Name. I'll vote later. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a tough one. I am tempted to say keep, due to it being a pagan band, however, The article is POV. After a brief look over WP:BAND, the article does not appear to meet the standard, however it is well sourced, and makes a case for possible noteability. I would like to see it stay, but I will leave it for other editors to make their votes.


 * Keep Is this band notable? Nothing else matters. I would say yes. They exist, they have recorded, they are main-staging at significant festivals. As a band, that's enough to make them adequately WP:N. Rename to Themis (band) though, just to meet WP:MOS. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment With respect to the above editor, their logic is flawed. Point A: please read WP:EXISTENCE. Point B: having recorded in and of itself does not pass WP:MUSIC; the criterion is multiple albums on a notable label, which Themis have clearly not managed. Point C: the festivals in question are not significant per WP:N themselves, and aside from this the band has yet to play at them. If they get coverage in, say, a Canadian national newspaper, a book or even a commercially published music magazine, recreate the article post-festival. If they're not covered, they're back to what they have now, which is effectively squat as far as Wikipedia notability guidelines go. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC is just plain wrong and needs changing: it emphasises recording on major labels above all else, and is biased against bands from non-mainstream genres (this is a problem across all of music, not just for Wicca). It also fails to take any account of the festival scene, where some highly notable bands that are regulars at niche-market festivals for years get deleted from Wikipedia because they don't get chart placement or radio play on Clearchannel stations. As to Themis, the events they've played so far, the coverage they've received (and has been noted on WP) does seem to achieve adequate WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to defend the music policy, but at issue here is verifiability. These festivals are not really the big time. Canadian Woodstock--I counted some sixty bands playing? for 20 minutes each? And the other festival strikes me as fairly small also. BTW, is this not Crystal Ballery, attempting to derive notability from future events? My main question to you is, however, what coverage? In reliable sources, please. Like a newspaper or a magazine, something not written by the Themisters themselves. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per G4. This material is no different from the previously deleted version, but for the fact that it has a different picture. The sources do not address the notability of the band, except for the 'sources' published by the band itself. Strip the references that talk about Wicca or about the Safe house, and all you have left is material submitted by the band itself of by sympathizers. I mean, look at the opening of the paragraph "Inspiring a new genre," which opens with the weasel claim "The music of Themis has been described[6] as a genre influenced by Wicca: Wicca Rock." And who has described it as such? The nameless contributor of a Canadian Webradio station whose editorial standards seem to be non-existent. Have they toured in significant ways? No. Have they released a record on a notable label? No. Have they even had the local newspaper write an article about them? No. What they do have are editors who stick more feathers in this peacock than I've seen in some of the worst BLPs that have come up here at AfD. Passing admin, please check the record and delete this article. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * DrmiesTags: Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. so I ask please could you within the article pick a paragraph or two and re-write them the way you feel they should read JUST SO I KNOW. Many Thanks Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I didn't tag anything. Either way, even if I had, that's not necessarily my job. I don't think rewriting anything will make this notable, though it might make it less puffy. Rewriting should start with cutting--no matter how fast Wicca is growing, it doesn't help this band's notability. For a nice objective article on a band, see Sepultura, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a G4, clearly. We shouldn't be here. On the merits? Non-notable bands, from bubblegum pop to polka to straight edge to whatever this is try to promote themselves on wikipedia every day. And all of them should be deleted until they can pass the very low notability threshold.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - while I found the article interesting, it is a synthetic, POV essay about a band that does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.  LadyofShalott  Weave  03:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — LadyofShalott   Weave  03:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — LadyofShalott   Weave  03:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  — LadyofShalott   Weave  03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as I am unable to find any Google references for this use of Themis, despite trying to restrict searches to Wicca-related instances. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no reliable independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2009 (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.