Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themis music


 * 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. The arguments that this fails WP:MUSIC are compelling, and the references given to refute that are much less so. Kevin (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Themis music

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

Nominating as non-notable self-promotion. References are either band-related websites or directory sites, with the possible exception of the CBC Radio 3 site (although the band admits this site seems to have an open-door policy towards bands, meaning inclusion isn't an indication of notability). While not a primary indicator in and of itself, there are only about 25 Google hits when searching for 'Themis "Wicca rock'" and 'Themis "Wiccan rock'". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the fact that it has not ...been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. As the nom, it has been mentioned on CBC but I there is that policy.... TALKIN   PIE EATER   REVIEW ME  01:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep * It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. At least three sources E-Music Download Review: Themis Music, CBC Radio3 Review and WebRadio Canada Review verify the article fully and reliably. Mobrien9279 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. The references provided by Mobrien show verifiability but not notability.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is notable within substantial portion of the population. The article refers to a very narrow genre of religious music that has few practitioners. Many people who are Wicca's probably don't want to say that. The rules of Wikipedia say that "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate" More to the point, the article is notable if it were true. It appears verified true. The fact that in a small country like Canada (Population of New York City) you have the emergence of a new music Genre involving an ecology-based religion is of itself notable. There are a lot of us Wicca around the world. Here in Sweden there are more than a few. Some are outspoken like me.  Stop this professional snobbery and keep.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.5.80 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)  — 88.80.5.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I think notability is established. I found this review (www.e-music.ca/focus1-themis.htm) to be quite useful. Basically it says that Themis has invented a new music classification. I am sure the competing music genres will be upset (there are soooo many) but if you look at the uniqueness its nothing to worry about, just something new but harmless. Themis should be kept alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.163.29.30 (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — 66.163.29.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep * Ok. I have asked a number of other people to assit with discography and references. The problem is that I and most people are WIki illiterate and just learning. PLease give me enough time to make the changes needed. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. -Brian Mobrien9279 (talk) Mobrien9279 (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't !vote more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that there may be a link between mobrien.com and webradio.ca. If Mobrien9279 is linked to mobrien.com (and/or to Themis) there could be a potential conflict of interest. - DigitalC (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete can't seem to establish their notability in accordance with policy and guidelines. Lacking in reliable 3rd party references for verifiability. Not sure the review mentioned above is from a reliable 3rd party source either. This article should be deleted and appropriate articles created about the genre Wicca Rock and the band Themis (band) when they both become notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete notability doesn't appear to be established, there is a lack of reliable 3rd party sources, and doesn't do well on the google test . --Deadly&forall;ssassin 10:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No particular opinion on notability as yet, but it has to be said the quality of the article is terrible, even down to the title - if the band is called Themis (as is the case.....I think) then why is the article entitled "Themis music"...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess on that is because articles entitled Themis already exist about other subjects and AGF the creator is new. Plus perhaps some confusion between the band and the "genre" they created. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Portrait of the Dead Countess (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, utterly non-notable per WP:MUSIC; sources cited above are nowhere near good enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Yes. Themis is a very common name. Mars exploration,+ satelites, + the Themis bands, and mother justice herself all share the name. Themis music which is what the article is about is the name of the Studio and the Band Camp and the Band is called "Themis". Somebody referred to 'the Google test' ('doesn't do well on the google test') (?) Google "Themis" and "Themis music" and you will see incredibly different results. The point is that I think Brian used the name for the article correctly as it describes Themis music the Band Camp, the studio and the concept of wicca music. I disagree with the statement "quality of the article is terrible" and wonder why there is so much derisive commentary in this thread without any form of constructive help or assistance. I guess you must keep outsiders out.
 * Comment okay in an attempt to help may I suggest that the article be rewritten to better reflect what it is about. Perhaps, by sectioning it and discussing each aspect in a different section. Also perhaps reviewing the help pages on article creation and particularly on "your first article" could help solve some of the "content" problems. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if the article is kept then the most important improvement that could be made would be to put in some more substantial content about what the band has actually done/achieved to date and trim the huge amounts of unencyclopedic rambling about their beliefs/creed/lyrical content..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also seriously question the claim of the band to have invented a whole new genre of music. One band choosing to sing about a particular subject does not suddenly create a whole new genre of music.  Plus, although my knowledge of wicca is minimal to say the least, haven't bands like Inkubus Sukkubus been making rock music with wiccan themes (i.e. "wiccan rock") for many years.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

* keep no particular opinion on notability either. it seems fine. I found the article interesting. 66.163.18.194 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Clearly the same as 66.163.29.30 above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting isn't a policy or guideline and therefore not really a valid reason to keep. If it were my "vote" would have been different.

192.139.80.22 (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Fred Harris — 192.139.80.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep some of the links are just listings but four or more articles seem to be from third party sources. It's a close call but I say notable and 'keep'
 * question can you let me know which 4 articles you think are from reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject of the article in a non-trival way are. I will happily look again at them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * answer reference links 1, 2, 3, and 8 look good to me. the others are valid to support the various elements but after searching on yahoo I found better notability than Themis music uses. above rewrite suggestion might be a good approach —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.80.22 (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * replyUnfortunately, I can't access 1, 2, or 8. I've already commented above that the review may not constitute a reliable 3rd party source in accordance with the projects guidelines and policies. Please understand that proving the existence (or even popularity) of the band isn't the same as notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * reply oh dear. well maybe the connection will open up later. the article at Web Radio has a contact (http://webradio1.net/melanie/) listed and its an interview; the CBC has a section where the band was on the air. The CBC links are slow (java?). The Wicca theme is talked about in one way or another every linked article even the 3rd prty schedule show listings. But wait. The fuss about wiccan rock and Themis is that they are starting a new genre. That's the notable thing, right? I have seen this fuss with a new wine! (gave myself away :) I must get on with my day. name is Joe BTW. and thanks. 192.139.80.22 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated above, I would dispute that one band choosing to sing about a particular subject suddenly causes a "new genre of music" to be invented -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Double Blue  (Talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   --  Double Blue  (Talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

* keep I think the edits made already fix the article sufficiently. It should survive. It is notable. 66.163.18.204 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — 66.163.18.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Clearly the same as 66.163.29.30 above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the recent edits are good. i will look again tomorrow and see what edits might help. sugestions? Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nn self-promo. Libs (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Note criteria 7, which states "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style". Creating a new "genre" of music is not notable in itself, and needs verifiable reliable sources that states that this genre is notable.
 * Comment: A summary of the current references follows:
 * Webradio.ca - no indication that this is a reliable source
 * E-music.ca - a review of a local show
 * myspace.com - Themis' official myspace, which I don't believe is a RS for the sourced statement
 * Themismusic.com - official website
 * livewithculture.ca - a gig listing for a local show at the Rivoli
 * As such, I feel that it doesn't meet the first criteria of WP:MUSIC, which is - "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." A gig listing is trivial, and two online reviews don't meet the criteria of multiple non-trivial published works (especially when we consider the reliablily of the sources). - DigitalC (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear self-promotion, and doesn't pass any part of WP:MUSIC with multiple reliable sources. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. Is this delete or a keep. This article seems like it have enough source, but the article is not too clear.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 23:59, 21 July 2008 (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.