Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicca 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca music

Notability concerns with the scope of the article as it stands. There's some view that there could be a notable article on "Wicca music", but the current article is instead a narrow vanity page that's limited to a single country and a handful of bands, themselves of doubtful notability. The same issues were raised in the past, but not addressed. There seems no possibility of a better article emerging from this, so unfortunately deletion seems like the best option. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some links re. past history: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicca rock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themis music Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and improve article. While the article has probelems, it seems like there is some notability to the music of the religion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article undoubtably has some problems, they're not cause for deletion, but editing. Wily D 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs much improvement, though. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable subject. As others have noted, it needs cleanup, but that's not a criteria for deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that this article demonstrates notability, to WP:N. There are two references that might be used to demonstrate notability of the genre (Webradio & e-music, the others being specific to either Wicca, or to Themis) but both of these are still only in relation to the single band Themis. That's insufficiently distinct to count as plural sources, or as "independent of the subject" in relation to a new genre. This article, as it stands, is a vanity piece for a single band, not an article demonstrating the genre. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 13 January 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.