Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groove metal (2nd nomination)

Groove metal

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The result was Non-Admin Closure, The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and WP:SNOW SKATER ^Speak. 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~The article lacks notability~~. RG (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Refers to 90's post-thrash metal music. I dont care if the name is changed. Portillo (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Not a single source refers to groove metal as post-thrash(another term which really isn't notable.) To say that they are on in the same is pure, original research. RG (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest the genre of groove metal bands is? Portillo (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem this article has is that the term is FANTASTICALLY popular with non-professional music fans and bloggers, but music critics (that pass WP:RS) haven't had opportunity to write about it. Frankly, the depth and breadth of the non-RS support for this term gives me pause as to deleting it. --King Öomie 14:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I see no problem with notability. Of course it's a thin article now, since you've stripped it over the last couple of weeks, trying to fit your POV. Would you deem Pantera's impact on the scene as non-notable? Nymf _hideliho! 14:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Effortlessly notable. Reinstatement of the referencing the OP deleted would be nice. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just as notable as the last time this went to AfD, resulting in a speedy keep. Proposer has decimated this article, removed refs that looked OK and then brought it here. Looks like he might have a personal issue with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I just pulling quotes out at random here. "So what do you suggest the genre of groove metal bands is?" I have no opinion on the subject, the point of the matter is notability. If this subject is so notable then why can no one find sources decpicting it's history or characteristic? "since you've stripped it over the last couple of weeks, trying to fit your POV," that was just flat out rude. I removed OR and unreliable sources, do you want an article full of false information? "but music critics (that pass WP:RS) haven't had opportunity to write about it." If this is a fan term then it's as useless as "fake metal". And seeing that Pantera stoping playing hair metal in 1990, I believe 20 years is certainly more than enough time to write about "groove metal". Could somebody actually give me a valid argument using legit references? RG (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:"Reinstatement of the referencing the OP deleted would be nice", this comment was the funniest of them all, considering this page was never well referenced. Rate your music, Youtube, an old wikipedia entry posted on another site, and whatever these two sites are [1] [2] were all used in the making of this fancruft. RG (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the cited content at Rate Your Music wasn't user-generated. Their staff writes the genre descriptions, and users rate the groups inside. I have no reason to believe that site is any less reliable than AllMusic, which has resisted every attempt to have it banned as an RS for metal. The YouTube link would have been fine if the ref was instead about the documentary that video is from, using the video as an easily-accessed way to confirm it. --King Öomie 13:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Basically per Bretonbanquet, RG has removed Reliable Sources claiming that they aren't.--SKATER ^Speak. 11:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper I personally hate the term. But its used frequently in the international media. A WP:SNOW just like last time. Wiki libs (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-And just since apparently it's not notable, here is a source from The Washington Post using it for Korn, I'll find more shortly.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With that source, it's a no-brainer that it should be kept. Nymf _hideliho! 16:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was surprised to see this at AfD, because I read the term being used a lot in reviews; but I was even more surprised at the lack of some really big sources available on the net (there are lots of mentions nevertheless, so the aggregate seems to lend some sort of notability to the term). However, the likes of Kerrang, Metal Hammer and Terrorizer (the three most eminent sources for reviews) don't put all (any?) of their reviews on the web, so it would be down to pulling out all my back issues, I'm afraid. Watch this space... – B.hotep •talk• 16:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional – mentioned a few times in reviews at Allmusic [3] – B.hotep •talk• 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- I've change my vote seeing as Allmusic have used the term on more occasions than just Pantera and the Washington Post nod. This seem to indicate to me that while this article will likely remain a stub, it is slightly notable (though I still have some serious doubts on the reliablity of Rate Your Music.) RG (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of so-so sources, but the WP article definitely put it over the top. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (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.