Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicca music (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. MBisanz talk 08:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca_music

AfDs for this article:
Wicca_music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article has not improved in notability since previous deletion debate and still focuses on one band.

I'm also troubled by the fact that my first (albeit bugged, as I didn't finish) attempt to record this as AfD was deleted by a major author of this article, who, in fact, is also focused primarily on writing this article and the article about the band that this article primarily focuses on.

Neither seem notable. No real examples outside of this one band have been given as to the notability of Wiccan music as a rock genre.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taniwha (talk • contribs)

  • keep That's a little bizarre. I was in the middle of making changes to the article including responding to requests for citations and you began overwriting my edits and then claim that no work has been done to improve the article. I am NOT a major author of the article and I will stop working on that article as you have requested. Katie alsop (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that about the last 10 edits that weren't me putting up the AfD header that you deleted, were you. That counts to me as you being a major editor. As I noted, your edits have primarily been this article and Themis, which was deleted for about the same reason I'm suggesting this be. Notability. Most of the links on this article point to this one band, not a large movement to be captured. Perhaps once it's more emerged rather than emerging it'll be notable enough to capture on Wikipedia? Taniwha (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that I made the edits is not sufficient reason to delete an article. You haven't made a case for deletion, only a case for disallowing me the right to make edits on Wikipedia. So I have stopped. Katie alsop (talk) 06:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not claim that the fact that YOU made the edits is sufficient reason to delete the article. Kindly do not cloud the issue by taking this personally. I noted that you deleted my first AfD header, which, I admit, was made incorrectly. So I remade it. I assumed, incorrectly perhaps, that you deleted my header in defense of your article. My apologies. It is, however, valid to note that you have done work on both this article and the one on Themis, both of which are potential AfDs for notability. Also, I see that you slapped a "Notability" warning on my personal user page. That's hardly funny. Taniwha (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whilst I support an article on Wicca music, this isn't it (I AfD'ed it the first time). This is still just a narrow vanity piece on one band. The opening sentence of, "Wicca music or Wicca rock is music [...] written by Wiccan musicians living in Canada." is ridiculous. It tries to justify the limitations of the article by turning them into some false defining characteristic of the genre. I'd like to see this article grow and prosper, but despite repeated claims that it will do so if left alone, it has failed to improve. As it stands, we'd be better off without it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply "Wicca music or Wicca rock is music [...] written by Wiccan musicians living in Canada." is ridiculous an unwanted edit. Someone randomly came along and added that as well as putting the article into the Category of "Canadian Wiccans" or some such chav thing Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/delete Like the above editor I support the idea of a Wiica music article, and in fact have suggested Google Books sources for decent sourcing. I personally know sufficiently little about the subject area to helpfully contribute. However, it is critical to point out that at present the article is not about the importance of music to the practice of the Wiccan faith but largely an advertisement for the band Themis (and to a lesser extent the equally non-notable act Chalice and Blade). If it can be re-written from scratch and appropriately sourced I will absolutely support its existence, as I truly believe that the topic in general is notable. But Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I WROTE INITIATED THIS ARTICLE and it isn't "self promotion" as I am not a member of any band. I am Wiccan only because of Themis members, friends and followers which lead a brand of Wicca sans witchcrap. It is a phenomenon of itself--a whole new movement of Wicca that quietly exploded in membership in the past few years. It is strongest on the West coast of America where Katie is from. There is a course taught at the So. California State Uni. It's about a religion many people are now passionate about. But what's going on here? You want work done on the article but to do anything is to get it deleted. Read the history on the article. The minute someone comes along and starts to do work on the article, some self-proclaimed deletionist (Taniwha ) notices it on the change list and nominates the article for deletion, just when it has someone to work on it. Read the history. Blackmetalbaz deletes a dead reference and Katie alsop (about 7 lines down) inserts a valid replacement. Etceteras. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, I think you're getting too far into a discussion of your views on Wicca. Maybe this is all a discussion better suited for the Wicca article than a music genre article? Also, kindly don't personally attack me for the AfD. Don't take it personally. I didn't notice this on the change list - I noticed it in the template box for Alternative Rock categories and said "really? What's the background on that genre?" only to see that the article is basically one band from Canada. Heck, even the link about "an emerging genre" is just about that one band. I read through the history and saw that the article had once been nominated for AfD, and was kept so that it could improve. It hasn't. It's still about one band. That one band's article was deleted before and recreated under another name, and is up for AfD again. If the band is of questionable notability and the genre is primarily one band, how is the article any more valid? Katie alsop has been a prime mover on both articles, and neither is notable IMO. Taniwha (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yep. I put the wrong header, afd1 instead of afdx. Before I could fix it, it was gone. Taniwha (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like that Katie alsop took it on to fix up the article and the Themis one as well. Why don't we give her a chance instead of making the cleaning up of a Wikipedia article akin to poking ones eyes out with hot needles. Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Katie Alsop can fix as much as she can, but she cannot overcome the complete and utter lack of independent and reliable sources on this topic--see this search. Almost the entire article is an ad for Themis. And if this topic is indeed notable, how come there is not a single notable band playing this style? Themis? Chalice and Blade? Not exactly notable bands. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ERROR The category of this article is Wicca and it talks about music influenced by Wicca. It is not required to meet the criterion of WP:MUSIC and... google.com produced Results 1 - 10 of about 3,420 for "wicca music". Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article is actually linked from the template on Alternative Music, so it needs to meet viability for Music articles. Sorry. A good number of the links on that google search are copies of the Wikipedia page. Others are links to music about or related to Wicca. I took a quick read of several of the articles related to Wicca and Music, and noted that the articles didn't mention Themis, or even match up with the definition of "Wicca music" that this article puts forth.Taniwha (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point us to the section of WP:MUSIC that deals with notability of alternative genres, rather than individual bands? I haven't found that. As far as notability goes, I'm happy that this topic is notable, just not that the article is good enough.Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is possible that there is such a thing; but this article is irrelevant to such an assertion. It's a clearcut vanity piece with a COI a mile wide. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott Weave 03:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott Weave 03:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with Orange Mike; the subject CAN be written on, but this article is COI, POV garbage in its current form. If it's kept, I'll probably help clean it up, but it could really benefit from an expert who's both familiar with the topic and willing to write from an NPOV perspective. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but "stubify" - there is a seed of a decent article here, but most of it is POV promotion. Delete the advertisement stuff and leave a stub upon which a good article can be built. LadyofShalott Weave 04:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article has a number of major problems - lack of neutrality, representative bands who could easily be deletion candidates, a lack of reliable independent 3rd party sources, a conflict of interest. JamesBurns (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neutrality. What utter nonsense. You talk about getting people who know something about the topic to rewrite the article as if you need someone who has your point of view to do it. I swear the people writing comments here haven't read the article. What is significant about popular Wicca music is that it represents the new and more popular incarnation of the religion which sways away from a focus on ancient (silly) traditions (the craft) and adopts a more modern, somewhat eclectic approach to spirituality. If you are looking for witches and spells, look elsewhere. The modern movement's intellectuals has no interest. If you are looking for an end to a patriarchal society (include Wiki) and saving the rain forest, join the modern (Themis-brand) Wicca movement. Remember that 'Themis' was about balance and justice, putting the mother at the head of the famly and seeking a gender equality in life with justice, nurturing and mourishing for the "oneness" of all sentient beings. Clearly people working on this article are on a different wavelength from the people who shred it who still think its about ego and a musical band. Pffft. I could use whatever help I can get. Scoffing at me continually is just crap. Read the article. Make it better. I like how it reads right now. Katie alsop (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I preferred it when wicca was still an underground religion and knowledge was kept only between initiants. It's become too much like christianity with its younger adherents engaging in sermonising and preaching using the internet. And what's with the gothic posturing such as dressing in black and calling themselves countess and ruffian angel? That's the opposite of what earth religions and "cunning folk" practiced. JamesBurns (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And calling followers of the traditional craft as "silly" is? JamesBurns (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a couple of brief points really, as I think most of the valuable points to this discussion have been made, but a) a Google Books search suggests that an article on Wiccan music in general might fly (I got plenty of hits), and that a paragraph mentioning Themis etc. (making sure we didn't contravene WP:UNDUE) may be appropriate, if sourced properly. b) If your claim is that the article should be exclusively about this supposedly emergent genre, then it will get deleted in the absence of any sources at all to demonstrate its notability; nothing in the article does that. c) Actually I know a number of people that follow the "silly" Craft as you put it; in general it is a good idea to not mock people's religious beliefs of any kind on Wikipedia... the guideline is WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I know a number of people that follow the "silly" Craft as you put it; I am very sorry. I did not intend to mock anyone. By "silly traditions" I was referring to traditions I consider silly within the Wicca 'craft'. I wasn't referring to any person in specific, especially not your associates or w/e. I am not alone and there is widespread concern about many very old-fashioned beliefs dating back dozens of centuries. For example, the Wiccan law of return. The Law of Return is the belief that any action will return like action in this life. This is not karma, not retribution in a future life. The return is in this life, here and now. Some believe the return is three-fold, hence the "Three-Fold Law." Trust me, it's silly. It's a lot like the belief in the earth being flat. It really isn't flat. That's a silly thing to believe because in the years long after Christ walked the earth, a dozen centuries after, we found out the earth was not flat. Wicca goes back may centuries before that and has some equally bad misunderstandings relating to earth, nature, and the universe. In Wicca today, we know there are outdated things people believed in long before JC walked the earth. We simply know better now. Take for example the men who flew those airplanes into the tall buildings in New York. Of course the Law of Return did not apply. Trust me, that is one thing you should not count on. Be good for goodness sake, not because of the Law of Return. Tell others the same. The Law of Return was wrong and most Wiccans I know believe the old thinking was silly. We have learned differently over the ages. I hope you understand that many old beliefs in many modern faiths are regarded as old thinking, even silly. Not everyone, but most people try to stay up to date. The earth is not flat, that's silly, it's round. And that is what I mean by "silly" Katie alsop (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neutrality. I'm a little baffled at the objections to the mention of the band 'Themis' in this article. If writing an article on 'Marxism' do you fail to mention Karl Marx? No. If a school of thought is created branching off of an entity's idea or interpretation of an idea, then they are notable within that topic. No modern outspoken entity has taken the stage to speak of Wicca since days post wheel and fire discovery (Gardnerian thesis), save for Themis, which in the era post stell cell discovery espouses an eclectic, more modern spirituality. We're not talking Gardner's covens and witching circles here. And while, yes, I am a newb here, I think my opinion counts as much as anyone else's. I think the article meets the notability standards and isn't "shameful self-promotion" on anyone's part. I am an eclectic Wiccan. I can try and help write parts of the article but the subtleties of Wiki structuring I am not yet familiar with... a little help? BloodiedRoses (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— BloodiedRoses (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me put it this way: if Marxism were brand new, had a few dozen followers, and basically no global recognition yet, we'd be making this same argument about deleting an article on Marxism. On a different note, if you feel that Wicca Music is totally defined by this Themis group, to the complete exclusion of all other forms of music that might be associated with Wicca, I can see how you'd argue that the article on Wicca Music would have to be Themis-heavy. But a musical trend defined by one band is not a trend, not a genre. It's the sound of one band. This article purported to be a definition of a genre of music that apparently doesn't really exist as a genre. Also, the article on Themis has been deleted based on their non-notability. Twice. Taniwha (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's no evidence in the article that the genre exists in the first place. The quoted sources _might_ be enough to support Themis (band) as an article under WP:BAND, and I would suggest that the editors who want to keep this article concentrate on that instead. Tevildo (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Related Question... I first discovered this page (and created the 2nd AfD) because I discovered the 'genre' article on the Alternative Rock template. If this page is deleted, will it automatically be removed from the template, or will it need manually removed? Taniwha (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to challenge - Actually, there's no rule that says Countess shouldn't express her opinion in discussions such as this. Her POV will doubtlessly be taken into account by whatever admin closes this discussion. LadyofShalott Weave 18:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, fair enough, there's no rule that says she can't vote, but the Articles for Deletion guidelines state "# Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.". Taniwha (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion I`m curious about this. Showing that there is not enough net notability for Themis or this narrow definition of wicca rock as a genre defined by one non notable Canadian roc band with an ideological message is not a valid reason to delete? I think you should focus on proving why the article should be kept. Except, as I said, you are the su ject of the article and I feel you should abstain from a direct vote. But if you want to discss the issue, do, please. Use my talk page even. Taniwha (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Commment The article fails WP:N and WP:NPOV. No significant coverage anywhere for the specific branch of Wiccan music it's writing about. The music of Themis (band) is not notable as has been demonstrated in that AfD. It fails WP:NPOV precisely because (as is evinced in comments above) the editors are not interested in writing about Wiccan music in general. If such an article were written, I would support it whole-heartedly and give Themis the due weight it deserves, which is, at best, a sentence. If we strip out all of the Themis stuff at the moment, all that we are left with is a statement that Wicca music is music made by Wiccans, which is simply a dicdef. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My final comment, for the benefit of the closing admin. Bearing in mind that the article is exclusively about one band, it's well worth reading the previous deletion logs associated with this page here, here, here and here. They show the repeated deletion and recreation of the same material by a small group of editors, and I suggest make a case for salting. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Seconded. Taniwha (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Notability appears to hinge on one deleted band, with thin references. Is there mention an article in a credible major publication, even one pertaining to popular music? Otherwise, this looks like a very well-constructed example of WP:OR. JNW (talk) 23:12, 14 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wicca_music_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138723765"