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. — Aitias // discussion 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Themis Music

Subject is not notable (enough) per WP:Music. Album is self-published, and while there appear to be a lot of references, most of them are to the band/project's own website and associated sites. Coverage is actually limited to this, which doesn't appear to be a much of a publication; this, a site where one can download music for a fee; and this, whose information is a copy of the first link (or the other way around). Despite the claim to many very different activities, there really is no in-depth independent coverage of the band, and thus notability is not established. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete The band clearly fails WP:MUSIC; the article has been deleted before on these grounds and in the intervening time has not been signed, released even a single album on a notable label, or received any non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources whatsoever. I'm afraid webradio biogs just don't cut the mustard. The one potential claim to notability is as the most prominent members of a notable subgenre; however, if the subgenre consist of (at present) one band of note (the subject, up for deletion) then that crierion cannot be adequate. This is a pure vanity piece. Tangentially important, but could I advise people to take a look at the article's talk page before commenting. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note--I was unsure whether it had been deleted before, which is why I provided an incorrect edit summary when I put the tag on the article. Thanks Blackmetalbaz. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deja vu, I'm not finding any more reliable sources that are better than last time around. Possible Speedy G4, but it has been over 6 months, so maybe not. Still doesn't meet notability per WP:MUSIC. If they keep going, they may get a mention in the music press as being the the most deleted band on wikipedia, which would then make them notable under Music#C1. Excuse my humour, I haven't had my morning coffee yet. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This strikes me as a subject that will probably eventually gain notability, but hasn't done so yet. The sources given do not pass WP:MUSIC so it's a delete for the time being with no sanction against recreation if more references become available in the future. Trusilver 08:31, 29 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.