Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicca rock

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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca rock

WP:NEO, no reliable sources, something someone made up one day, possible hoax ("sometimes called gothic rock") Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as non-notable neo-genre. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this "genre" seems to be played by one band. Too minor for Wikipedia.
talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

We don't care about "minor" as a reason for deletion, we care about "notable" and "verifiable". If there's only one demonstrable and notable Elven Jedi out there, then Elven Jedi is a non-empty subgroup. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable neologism Artene50 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Says the author. Perhaps someone could suggest a sensible merge with another religious music genre. I obviousluy had a hard time fitting Wicca rock into
Southern Gospel, Jesus music
but that Wikipedia has no category for the Wicca religion's music makes it no less true that it exists and should be written about.

"Too minor for Wikipedia" and "seems to be played by one band" are friendly observations that inadvertantly say that a certain religion over another's is deemed too miniscule. That does not seem to warrant deleting the work that I put into this incipient category. I agree that confessed Wiccans and Vegans likely mumerically comprise no more than 1 to 2% of any country's society and that is very small indeed but nevertheless to be encyclopedical and comprehending a wide variety of information on each topic (religious music) is to cover the fullest possible range. We are not discussing whether religious music is germane, we are discussing whether or not a particular religion's music is acceptable.

I would rather address your issues and ask for help in doing that to keep this category of religious music alive in some form. I am collecting additional information about numerous other practitioners

"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."

"something someone made up one day, possible hoax" doesn't seem to be a valid objection so I can't deall with that.

In summary, I am eager to work at expanding the article to bring it up to snuff. What's needed? Can anyone help? Thanks Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! You accidentally removed my comment, which isn't the done thing round here. Don't worry, it's fixed (and I made every mistake going when I was new... :-o ). I agree it's not a hoax, I think the question is whether a genre of music played only by one band deserves its own article. Perhaps a talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm prepared to accept that it is not a hoax, but a genre of one is not notable. It is absolutely "something someone came up with one day" and as such should be deleted per
WP:NFT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Delete per some of the same comments I made at
Gothic Rock and expand when notable as separate from Themis. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I think it is well worth noting that the AfD templates have been removed from this article and that for
WP:OWN. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply Let's
WP:OWN as much as they are the only substantial contributors at present to an article they feel passionately about. Let's stick with the merits and/or flaws of the article and leave behaviour issues for the more appropriate places. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~(see below) As an example of the genre, how about Julian Cope? Extremely notable, and certainly an exponent of "Goddess Rock". Would he classify as "Wiccan" though (the precise theological distinctions are beyond my knowledge) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need a
talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
So what? Must be tons of them, just cite a slab of the Peggy Suicide lyrics. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question how can Julian Cope be an example of a "genre" that didn't exist until recently (2007 at the earliest based on the article(s) in question)Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because acts come before the genres they develop. You can't have a genre that nobody ever played. Someone could have a long career before being lumped into a new genre, like with Neil Young and Grunge.
talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

How familiar are you with Copey? He's been doing what he does (which is very obviously Rock with a strong Goddess theme) for years now. It doesn't matter if no-one bothered to label it before. This article probably is about a neologism, but that's not a bad thing. One of our funtions is to describe and explain them, once they're clearly established and notable. The only question really left is whether Copey would count as "Wiccan" or some other branch of neo-pagan droodery. I'm sure TotnesMartin is far more knowledgeable there than I am. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(interrupting the thread :P) well I'm a Pagan, and I have some Julian Cope albums, and his autiobiography (which doesn't mention Wicca, btw)
talk) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

(e/c) Please understand. I'm not disputing Julian Cope or anything about him or his music. I like pretty much all music (although I really don't know about genres and such because I listen to too much different stuff to get caught up in that. The problem is the article in question isn't about "Goddess Rock" it is about "Wicca Rock" which according to the article (and its references) is a very recent creation of one band. If we can find reliable 3rd party sourcing which helps to separate the two than I wouldn't have a problem with an article on the subject but, this isn't remotely that article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that's rather missing the point. What is important is whether the term "Wicca rock" is notable or whether it is a non-notable neologism. That Julian Cope played rock and may have been a Wiccan is neither here nor there. Incidentally, a Google search for "Julian Cope" and "Wicca rock" produces squat. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Copey isn't just a "Goddess-following musician", but that his notable style over many years has made this an integral part of the music (as I asked, how familiar are you with his lyrics?). He makes something that is very likely the canonical example of "Wiccan Rock", and has done it for far longer than this one Canadian band. My only concern is whether he's a "Wiccan", as there are subtle distinctions and schisms around the whole scene. Local to here (SW England), people throw salt at each other in the street because they think they're following a "bad" religion - I'd hate to mis-label anyone. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this cites Julian as a Wiccan, and also pulls in
talk) 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

keep I x'd over from the other thread too. I saw
Gospel rock et al and see the point above. I noted that Pagan Radio describes 'Themis' as both "Pagan" and "Gothic". I read Pagan rock and see that it is much different from Wicca rock. Also some of the bands in Pagan rock may belong in Wicca rock
the way the latter reads. Christian music has umpteen genres/categories--non-Christian music likely mimics that.

192.139.80.22 (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pagan rock" is about as far from "Wiccan rock" as Ulster marching bands are from the Sistine chapel. The only things they have in common are rock, and being equally distrusted by Christians. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply lol yes. i get that. i was looking at described musical style and wondered if some bands might be cross genre: wicca/pagan. maybe not after all. cheers. -Joe 192.139.80.22 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The funny thing is that "Wicca" is a subset of "pagan" (without annoying too many practitioners), but "Pagan rock" as a commonly-used genre is firmly at the dark Odinist end of Paganism. It would be a terrible idea to merge Wicca rock with Pagan rock Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think with the clean-up edits done at Themis music and addtional cleanup of the Wicca rock article the concept of a new genre of Wicca rock can survive with the articles. It is also a good suggestion to add an "influence on music" section in Wicca." in the alternative, if this article does nto survive. I agree with Andy Dingley that "It would be a terrible idea to merge Wicca rock with Pagan rock" and want to ask for help from Nymphetamine labyrinth and others editing this article to sustain it. Mobrien9279 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (change of opinion from above) As it stands, this isn't a good enough article to preserve. The topic of this article "Wiccan themes in the music of Themis", which I can't see as being sufficiently notable, outside a section of that band's own article.

As an article (even a category) on "Wiccan rock", then I think this would be a fine and notable subject. It would have to include the scope of all the bands currently playing "Wiccan rock", which would include
WP:COAT where it tries to hang a whole genre on too-close a look at one band. It's a good subject, but this isn't an encyclopaedic article to cover it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to Andy Can you write something that explains how Julian Cope fits. I would love to but can't but maybe there's more to Cope than I have seen. cheers Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You best bet is probably to ask at talk:Julian Cope Andy Dingley (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Note To Andy (please help me)I re-wrote the article using everyone's suggestions pretty much. Hellboy and I think Katie were walking all over me as i did that but I dont think there's any point in nitpicking the original article because even I think it sucks and I wrote it. :s So the new piece is a new start. And I don't exactly know how to do what you suggested insofaras category syntax goes. Please help if you will. Could I also beg a para from you on cope? Much thanks :o) Cheers Nymphetamine labyrinth (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We need to start with the sources, and then write the article according to them. The problem is that Wiccan Rock is a neologism, and that there are no
original research. DigitalC (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2008 (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_rock&oldid=1138723758"