Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark metal (genre)

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 no consensus. Suggest that someone figures out whether its a term or a genre or a theme or a tone genre or a style genre, write the article with that in mind, and then revisit this at AfD later if necessary. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 21:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark metal (genre)[edit]

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

Nothing has changed since last time, when I wrote "Previously deleted, non-existent genre. There appear to be no sources discussing it as a legitimate subgenre of heavy metal. The term is certainly in use, as a swift Google will attest, but the phrase is generally being used as an undefined/undefinable catch-all for an unconnected selection of bands that don't conveniently fit into other genre boxes. Searches of Google Scholar, News and Books also pull up hits, although the search is complicated by hits to "dark metal" in other usage. I found this in the New York Times, but the article is clearly talking about bands like Anthrax, Megadeth and Slayer." Previous discusions here, here, here and here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nom, actually things have changed; this version has no sources at all. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any treatment of "dark metal" as a distinct sub-genre of heavy metal, beyond it being used as a synonym for either Goth or Doom metal. I suppose there's an argument that this would justify a disambiguation page, but that does not require the retention of this article as the content is not relevant to a disambig page, and the title would need to be changed as well. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Cagoul (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added enough properly referenced reliable sources for the dark metal genre to *easily* meet the GNG. Just because we don't think it is a genre is no reason not to have an article explaining who *does* consider dark metal a genre AND which bands are in that genre, including the New York Times and many books on popular culture. The Steve 07:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those sources represent significant coverage? The term "dark metal" is used, but that isn't significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Are you seriously telling me that you don't consider a headline in the New York Times significant??? The Steve 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the NY Times is significant, but I don't see that any of the other coverage is really much more than passing mentions or and adjective. I remain unconvinced at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it shouldn't be a genre at all. The use of the term dark metal is so ubiquitous, so common in a heavy metal setting that maybe we need an article on that phrase. After all, isn't that the mission of Wikipedia? To explain things that are vague, that have various meanings to different people? Lets face it, we should have an article on adjective+metal, if, as you say, it isn't a genre. The reliable sources demand it. The Steve 07:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the issue that the title of the article specifically calls it out as a genre, I don't see how any of the sources support writing about the phrase "dark metal". Yes, it's a term that's used. But there's treatment of the phrase as a topic. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while most new genres have their articles deleted (I could list lots of examples), this one appears to have enough sourcing to pass barely per WP:GNG. 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Oops, signing this. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources provided do not actually justify the existence of a genre. In fact the sources provided pretty much negate the existence of such a genre - just look at the list of bands supplied! It's such a disparate bunch. The reality is that "dark" is just being used as a descriptor; try searching for "melodic metal"... you'll get thousands of hits, but that doesn't mean it's a genre! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which only means that it should be under a different name. The term itself, genre or not, is notable - just look at the sources, writers like Chuck Eddy, Robert Palmer (writer) and Robert Walser (musicologist). Your WP:Opinion on genre has no bearing on whether the term dark metal should be kept. So what if its a descriptor with a music type - then that's what we should have an article on... The Steve 01:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Thesteve: WP:GNG clearly states that for an article to establish notability, there must be significant coverage of the article's topic: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". None of your sources do this; they are what is called trivial mention. You are also being slightly evasive... if it is "the term" that is notable (which also hasn't been established), then the article needs to be about the term. If it is "the genre" that is notable (which is absolutely no way has been established), then the article needs to about the genre. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care one way or the other. Personally, I think most of the sources are referring to dark metal as a genre (although a theme or tone genre rather than a style genre, which is why everyone is confused). I only mentioned it because an article on the term might be more palatable to those of you who can't see it as a genre. Oh, here's another significant source. Its in the byline ("Goth-tinged dark metal proves its crossover appeal") in this one, and "directly addresses the subject". However, there are now two significant and 5000 trivial mentions in google books alone. That's why there needs to be an article. The Steve 05:01, 12 April 2012 (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.