Talk:Temple of Them

Notability

Is this obscure group notable enough according to wikipedia criteria? Which are and I quote - has it "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic."

Of the sources given in the article, there's only one credible secondary sources (the one by Sieg) - the rest are by the group itself or by the ONA or refer to what appears to be an unpublished chapter in an unpublished book by an unknown publisher. The name of the person apparently behind this obscure group also seems to be a pseudonym - there are no credible, reliable, sources about such a person.

A mention of this group in one rather obscure academic paper isn't "significant coverage over a period of time".

Also the article reads like a vanity blurb written by the group itself. Pavane7 (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, it's not a "mention" in an academic paper as much as it is a significant section of the paper. However, the author Sieg does make it clear that the sum total of his writeup is based on things found on internet forums, a writeup in a newsletter or something, and supposed (how does he know?) direct communication with the anonymous co-founder. So a good question is, how much does the Sieg paper count as "reliable"? In any case, I agree with you Pavane7: if that's all there is on the topic, notability is not established. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point about "how much does the Sieg paper count as reliable" given that it relies on info on the internet and emails with an anonymous individual. I don't count info on the internet and emails from some anon guy using a nym as a reliable source, which would seem to call into question Sieg as a reliable source about this Ryan group and about the ONA. Seems Sieg is just taking on trust what some anon guy says about himself and his group. Now if the real identity of the person behind this 'them' group were publicly known and there were reliable non-internet sources about him, his achievements, his ONA and other real world activities, and about his group, that would be a different matter. Where, other than on the internet and spread by this 'Ryan' himself, are the achievements and activities of this Ryan guy and his group recorded? Even his website is one of those freebie things. Pavane7 (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for merger with Order of Nine Angles page

I propose that Temple of Them be merged into Order of Nine Angles, with some minor edits and condensation of the article's(Temple of THEM) relevant content. Even if the the subject matter of this article is deemed not "notable" enough by itself the content is notable and relevant enough to be included in the Order of Nine Angles page, given that The Temple of THEM is one of the most active ONA nexions. Turaax (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The content of the article is all about a group and an anonymous person who are not notable according to wikipedia criteria, so the content itself is neither notable enough for an article nor relevant to the ONA article. Not relevant to the ONA article for two reasons. (1) where are the reliable secondary sources that state that this non-notable group is "one of the most active ONA nexions"? (2) Even if there were such sources, the ONA article is about the ONA not about small non-notable groups led by anonymous people who follow the ONA's take on Satanism. Also, and I quote from the article, this group "now functions independently from the ONA". Pavane7 (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. It seems you aren't very well read on the ONA or its ways of operation. There is no "central" organization; it is based on such nexions, whether they be public or not. This is quite evident in both the literature of the ONA itself and that of third parties covering the ONA. You have seen the sources, and even if there is only one external, scholarly source in the list provided that is "reliable" according to you, the direct mention of the Temple of THEM by the former "front man" of the ONA as one of the main nexions is quite "notable" in relation to the ONA, I would say. Now, if that is not reliable for you, then some of the information on the ONA page should also be removed, as some of the important information in that article is taken from various ONA affiliated sites or otherwise from the writings of allegedly ONA affiliated individuals. Moreover, I quote from the article; "According to their literature, in late 2011 the ONA relocated to California under the auspices of a young woman of Thai descent[10][11][12], and now has associates, and groups, in the United States, Europe, Australia,[13] New Zealand,[1] Canada, and Russia." This implies WSA and Temple of THEM - the two most public nexions of the ONA - without mentioning any names, on top of that it cites ONA literature for some important and relatively detailed information regarding the California-based WSA "under the auspices of a young woman of Thai descent". How is it not relevant to expound on either of these groups, which are covered in some external literature as well as the cited ONA material? And why can't ONA literature be cited in regards to THEM as well - either in its own article or in the existing ONA article? Turaax (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with user Pavane7. It states in the Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ORG - that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The organization in question has no significant coverage over a period of time in such sources, and is therefore not notable enough for an entry in Wikipedia. Furthermore, and relevant here, the guidelines additionally state that "An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not 'inherit' notability due to their membership." Since the group in question is not notable according to the criteria required here, and since it cannot 'inherit' notability by claiming membership of the ONA, there is no reason for it to be mentioned in the article about the ONA, let alone for details about it to be included in the ONA entry.

In summary, it is "not relevant to expound on" - in the Wikipedia entry about the ONA - either of the groups user Turaxx mentioned above because they cannot, according to Wikipedia guidelines, inherit notability from the ONA, and because they do not by themselves meet the criteria of notability for an entry in Wikipedia about them. There is additionally the problem that those groups are, apparently, run by anonymous individuals and Wikipedia is no place for entries about or mention of anonymous individuals, particularly as these anonymous individuals appear to be 'known' only via the internet. Were there to be "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" of the real individuals behind such groups associated with the ONA, then those individuals might merit an entry in Wikipedia which in itself might merit mention of them, and possibly their groups, in the Wikipedia entry about the ONA.

The onus is on the author of the 'temple of them' Wikipedia entry to provide proof of notability according to Wikipedia guidelines, which they have failed to do. Coolmoon (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the above comments by Coolmoon noting lack of reliable sources, I find it disturbing that this article was only placed here in the past few weeks, by an account that has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. The article deserves a prod, not a merge. Also, note that editors like myself and Coolmoon worked hard through and after two AfDs to rescue the ONA article and turn it into something serious and well-sourced; contribution of unsourced material about an anonymous internet individual, of no demonstrated notability, probably added to Wikipedia by himself, will only drive the ONA article back into another AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Good points - especially about the article here being unsourced material about an anonymous internet individual, of no demonstrated notability. Pavane7 (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)