Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal music

Add links
From 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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal music

[edit]
  • Delete - This page was created on the assumption that no overarching page existed for metal music as a whole, when one already does: Heavy metal music. Consequently the metal music page is highly redundant, not only repeating information from the Heavy metal music page, but also from the list of metal genres. Also, Metal music is of an inferior quality (for which it has been tagged) and is filled with POV statements. In comparison, the heavy metal music page has been a featured article and properly referenced. Current attempts to edit both pages in accordance with opinions that "heavy metal" is no longer widely used to describe the genre as a whole have not yet been adequately argued with sources and also threaten to dillute the quality of the heavy metal music page. Thus I suggest either a full deletion of the page or a merger with Heavy metal music WesleyDodds 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created that page because nowadays there is a distinction about Metal, which is an umbrella term to define all Metal music, and the genre Heavy Metal, that today is referred to that particular type of Metal music played in the late '70 by bands like Black Sabbath and so on. My intentions was not to feature POV statements, but to give the best definition about the Metal style of music and about what makes Metal as we know. The Heavy Metal page feature a lot of information about history of Metal and so on, but lacks of a true definition on what is Metal music, what renders Metal a song. --Olpus 02:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Characteristics" section on Heavy metal music defines the sound. WesleyDodds 08:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If defines Heavy Metal, not all metal. Symphonic Metal, Nu Metal, Power Metal - these are hardly 'dark'. Nu Metal is hardly guitar driven, nor is symphonic metal. It describes Heavy Metal, that is all. Leyasu 09:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with it, edit it in order to make it of better quality. But heavy metal music is intended to and is constructed in its present form to address all forms of metal as a whole. The problem with the Metal music page is that (as Oplus stated) is he wanted to indictate a difference between the usage of "heavy metal" and "metal" but he did it from the wrong avenue. While some may use "heavy metal" to talk about a particular subgenre of metal, the article itself does not function that way; consequently the articles continue to addresses the same topic because they address the same purpose, regardless of title. I can understand the desire to separate the form as a whole and what some now view as a distinct subgenre (which is still debatable, mind you, but not really the issue here). But the current approach does not address those issues. If anything, an article for heavy metal as a subgenre should have been created, and there should have been a discussion about renaming the main article, not the creation of another overrarching "metal music" page. The entire approach to the issue is backwards. WesleyDodds 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not been the best or easiest way to do things, agreed. But waste not want not. Whats done is done, and going even further backwards isnt worth it. What we have, is all the things we need, mixed and matched in different articles. Deleting this, deletes one of the needed parts. What im doing at the minute, is sumerrising in my own head, the best way forward in getting the following objectives done:
  • An article that lists all the metal genres and references, plus history of metal as a whole.
  • An comphrensive and factual article on Heavy Metal and its place as both a genre and originator of the metal basis, something similar to Rock n Roll's article i would presume.
  • Sorting out the articles as to not lose content, and merge the correct parts of each article with each other, keeping the articles seperate, and removing the overlap.
Im sure i was clear in intention there. Leyasu 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not the best way to do things, since an article already existed to serve the purpose you are trying to achieve. If anything, edit that article. Doing it this way, creating two articles that cover the same subject (just with different titles) and possibly later altering the older article (given the outline above you provided) -- which has been a Featured Article, has been peer reviewed, and is properly referenced to reduce any POV that might be associated with the subject -- in order to narrow its scope is deconstructing the hard work of others who have been working on the Heavy metal music page long before any of us came anywhere near it.
The Wiki Category for the music form is "heavy metal". The heading on the genre template before it was altered was a link to Heavy metal music. Most references on WIkipedia when referring to the umbrella term link to Heavy metal music. This is an inefficient way of accomplishing these goals, and it's wasting a lot of time that could be used more effectively in regards to these pages.
Seriously, it would still be easier to just rename Heavy metal music or have Metal music redirect to it. WesleyDodds 11:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article or not, it is mostly wrong. A lot of it, is wrong. Sorting out the metal music page, and then merging the two would be good. Merging Heavy Metal into this page, saves the effort of renaming.
An article also designed to fit the bill, doesnt mean it does. Many times something is reviwed as good, when in fact, it is not good. Yes, the article is well written. Yes, it does about explaining 'some' things well. Problem: Its outdated, wrong, and doesnt fullfill its purpose.
Later on today, or tomorrow, when im in a better frame of mind, i shall merge the Heavy Metal article's accurate parts into the Metal Music article. Then, i will set out on the process of making the Heavy Metal article better.
If you want to improve it, then help me do what needs doing, instead of critiszing my methods. If your not going to help, then dont critisize my way of doing things. Leyasu 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mostly wrong" by whose measure? I can look up all the books listed on the heavy metal music page and fact-check anything I need to. And they use Heavy Metal as an overarching term. Even if information is factually incorrect, it is still citable in order to reference conflicting viewpoints (which is what history is all about in the first place). If you are going to debate accuracy, you need to reference sources for a counter-argument! We really can't rely simply on your POV for reference. It may be right, but we need to be able to check that you are right. WesleyDodds 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine when i have more time instead of borrowed scraps of time, i will go find a bunch of websites. The problem is, a bunch of books written by people with no affiliation to something, doesnt make it right, it makes it a bunch of books that are complete crap. I will get you the websites, as and when i have the time. Leyasu 12:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem is, a bunch of books written by people with no affiliation to something, doesnt make it right, it makes it a bunch of books that are complete crap."
What do you base that on? Do you know anything about these authors? Ian Christe, for one, certainly comes from the metal culture. Additionally, a degree of critical distance is useful when studying subjects. Sure being in the thick of it all can lead one closer to "the truth", but there is always the potential for personal bias. An outsider's viewpoint helps to put an insiders' viewpoint of "the truth" into a greater critical context. You must factor in to you criticism that just because a number of members in a community hold a tenant as truth does not necessarily make it true.
Also: Websites would be helpful for your counter-argument, but books, magazine articles, and video would be even better. WesleyDodds 13:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has since been heavily revised since the AFD

I to do agree with a merger, I do not care which is merged into one though. But the metal subhenres pagfe is gone, so is true metal, I have merged them into metal msuic a couple of days ago, so that is not repeating previously said statements. - NykylaiHellray

I will at this point make clear that a consensus was reached on the issue, that the page should be Heavy Metal Music should be about the genre of Heavy Metal, and Metal Music, which is used to mean all the genres of Metal Music, should be rewritten. As Wikipedia works on consensus, and the article is being revised, isnt deleting it because your argument was over thrown by consesnus a bit, childish? Leyasu 09:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is still being actively debated on both the Heavy metal music and Metal music talk pages, thus no consensus has been reached. WesleyDodds 09:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A consenses WAS reached. One that you didnt agree with mind you, one that was reached before you asked for AFD. The consensus to Merge the Heavy Metal articles contents into the Metal Music page, after revising the Metal Music's content and formatting, to make the merger easier. Asking for AFD when experts on the subject have reached consensus is undermining the consensus, because you dont agree with it.
On that note, i ask for this AFD to be cut or postponed, until the merger outcome is seen, as a consensus was already reached on the issue, and this AFD is a blatant attempt at getting ones own way, through underhand means. Leyasu 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree this is pointless, as both pages contain good information, whether they merge or stay seperate I do not care though, but it is pointless to even think about deleation until all sides of the argument agree, Ley do you need any help on the rewrite? I have organised some of the stuff yesterday with the true metal, and subgenre metal page merge. Is there anything you would like me to help you on, as I do not want to make any futher changes, unless they are lost during your rewrite. NykylaiHellray 1:19PM 10 Jan 2006

I have the rewrite in a text document. Im doing it as a step by step, as im doing Nu Metal. Its in about 4 different documents actually, as i need to keep juggling things about so they are in subsequent order, and in the right place, as well as rewrite a lot of parts. When i post the revision, copyediting it would be dandy, as what i see as NPOV, not all people agree on. Leyasu 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite this article adding information on what makes a song a Metal song, the tecnique of playing Metal and other tecnical information: an expert is needed too. The Metal Page is also useful to list some music that are part of Metal by name, as Nu Metal, Industrial Metal and others, but aren't considered legitimate sons of Heavy Metal by many. --Olpus 02:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - No consensus was reached as per the Talk pages. This claim is based in what evidence? I´ve proposed the merge of Metal into Heavy Metal. Many people agreed with me. The majority. Some people think it should be the other way around: Merge Heavy Metal into Metal. The Heavy Metal article was started before many of us even registered to wikipedia, it was meant to be the article describing the music we call Heavy Metal or simply Metal in general. It do not try to explain every and each subgenre of (heavy) metal, one of it is "Heavy Metal" (as a strict term meaning the bands that started this musical style). Heavy Metal has a dual meaning, one of them a synonym to Metal. This article was a featured article on wikipedia and is considered a high quality article as such. It is a shame trying to enforce this difference of Metal and Heavy Metal by destroying the hard-work spent by fellow wikipedians on the Heavy Metal articl just because some people think this difference is worth this debate! Loudenvier 13:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not anyone trying to force a difference when the difference has existed almost a decade. Hence such terms as Metalhead, Metal Bands, Metal Music, Metalfests - If, by your reconing, it would beHeavy Metalhead, Heavy Metal Bands, Heavy Metal Music and Heavy Metalfests.
Again, by that defination, we would have such things as Punk Rock N Roll, Gothic Rock N Roll, Alternative Rock N Roll, Death Rock N Roll, so on, so forth.
The usage of it was the same as Rock N Roll, and its no longer a double meaning. Yes, people with little knowledge of the metal scene, commonly refer to it as Heavy Metal sometimes, depending on generation. Most people however, call it Metal. The same as most people who arent big on it, use 'Rarrgghhh' as an insult to music with distorted vocals, regardless of genre.
That is the way things are. Heavy Metal Music = Heavy Metal. The same as Rock N Roll Music = Rock N Roll. Not all forms of metal are Heavy Metal, mainly because they lack core features of Heavy Metal, which, if you read the article, is explained. Also, ive seen featured articles, that get considered featured, when they have little to no accuracy about them. Remember, that the FA council, normally has little to no knowledge of the subject of an article, and reads it in the same way as i write, in the form of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter.
An article being well written, doesnt mean its factual, accurate or correct. Using FA as a veil to hide behind doesnt work, not with someone who will quite happily point out the flaws in the veil.
I dont wish to keep arguing this, and yes a merger is taking place. The talk page is currently discussing 'how' to do it, in a manner that suits 'all' the editors of the page. So instead of going 'this needs doing, that needs doing, and the other needs doing', how about doing something constructive towards helping the discussion of how we go about it to achieve the best results, without losing information, factual accuracy, or prose. Leyasu 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont read magazines, dont have a video player, and dont buy anything other than books by Graham Masterson and Shaun Hutson. Yes, what you said is true. But again, experts in the subject are normally right, even when biased.
For instance, a group of outsiders to rocket science could tell several rocket scientists that they are wrong about how to build a rocket. The rocket scientists devoloped how to builed a rocket, have built rockets, and studied the subject intensely. They are bound to be correct.
Its worth mentioning that some people still refer to Metal as Heavy Metal music, sure, i wouldnt say it was foolish to point that out, but it is now Metal Music. Thats what it is. NPOV records all POV, yes. But it also lends to fact being the way things are, and then alternative POV on things, such as the smaller group that still calls things by its old name. Leyasu 13:46, 14 January 2006 (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/Metal_music&oldid=1079955512"