Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative 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 of the debate was Speedy Keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Metal

I personally have never seen or heard of this 'subgenre' of metal ever before, in any publication, or from any person. I've been frequenting metal forums all across the internet for some time now and this article really doesn't seem to be a real term... Nevermind accurate. It may have been used in some publications by fans of alternative rock, but again, I've never seen it... And a genre of music created by fans of a different genre? This article definitely seems to be an attempt to change the definition of nu-metal to a metal subgenre without using the proper article... Possibly because they already tried? The best this page does to define the subgenre it's claiming to talk about is:

'As with most rock music genres, alternative metal has proved somewhat difficult to define. Some fans and musicians have firm ideas of genre and sub-genre, while others reject such notions as useless or limiting. Influence from many other genres is common in alternative metal.

The term is very loosely defined, but is usually used to describe artists playing a style of metal which is considered either unique or difficult to define.'

There are several problems with this definition, in my mind. First of all, the genre is called 'alternative metal', yet the author describes it as a rock music genre. I understand that metal came from rock music, but it has progressed in a very different direction and I don't see how 'alternative metal' can be a subgenre of rock (even though, with the bands listed, it is more accurate) while being called alternative metal. Would it not just be alternative rock?

Secondly, how on earth does that statement define a genre? All it says is it can't be defined. It seems that almost anything can be alternative metal, if you wanted. All it has to be is unique or difficult to define. Opeth has both melodic death and progressive metal elements... Does that make them alternative metal too? What about Despised Icon? They draw from death metal and hardcore/metalcore. Me hitting a washtub and screaming would be considered unique and difficult to define too. Does that make them all alternative metal now? A *lot* of bands in metal that have nothing in common with each other could easily be lumped together under these vague guidelines. This article, to me, seems to be using circular reasoning, using the bands to define the genre and then taking that genre and using it to define the bands, never really getting anywhere. I think because of this, this article is a serious candidate for deletion. If not deletion, this article needs to actually *define* a real subgenre of music (And decide which genre of music it belongs to. The author seems to want to claim it is a subgenre of metal, while calling it a subgenre of rock). Right now, it's wasted space no matter how you look at it. Ilyon 04:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I havent much to say, that everything Ilyon said is right. Most of the bands listed are also from varying forms of unrelated music, and have no connection to metal, or each other. This article is indeed wasted space, and seems to be more of an article made by someone who is trying to showcase their favourite bands, while borrowing from, and minorly rewording paragraphs from other articles. ~~Leyasu

• Speedy Keep, Faith No More is a prime example of alternative metal. They are certainly notable and so is the genre. Cobra 06:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This so called genre has no sources that support it. As case was made against it, anything according to its defination is Alternative Metal, and many of the bands listed have no connection to metal themselfs, and range from Alternative Rock to Nu Metal bands. This article comes across as a biased view of someone who wishes to create a genre to promote their favourite bands and therefore deserves to be deleted. ~~Leyasu

Cobra, could you please explain what the genre is? I just can't fathom what makes up a genre that could include such disparate bands and the article certainly doesn't do anything at all to show what makes up the genre. Ilyon 08:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. I'm pulling scads of Google hits on this. There a lots of names for genres generated all the time... Black Metal (whatever that is) and so forth, and I don't want to get in the middle of a discussion over Alternative Metal vs. Nu Metal, but clearly this is referenced by thousands of sites. Herostratus 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'd agree with this as a genre except that simply getting google hits doesn't make it a genre. I typed up four random letters: Qati. Something that is obviously not a word. Now, here's the google hits: Results 1 - 10 of about 11,700 for Qati. Obviously Qati must be a word, with that many hits, right? Even better, I then used the middle row of my keyboard only and just went from one side to the other getting the letters: 'asdfghjkl'. Hits? Results 1 - 10 of about 70,600 for ASDFGHJKL. How about a search similar to the one you performed. 'Contrasting Metal', got 1,820,000 hits. Random Metal gets over 13 million. [1] I doubt 'contrasting metal' is a genre of music. You can find *anything* on a site like google and not all of those hits are going to actually link to anything about what they say in the description. My problem is still that there's no definition for this 'genre'. If you can pull up a site that defines this genre, it would be easier to argue for it to be kept. Ilyon 08:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with only using a website is that the genre isnt known well worldwide, has no defination as you previously said, and its major flar is that it borrows from other genres. It contradicts both Avant garde metal and nu metal. Rap Metal, also following the same problem as this article, has been nomintaed for merging into Nu Metal. This article, perhaps, would make for an equally good candidate for merging into Nu Metal if it doesnt warrent deletion. ~~Leyasu

• Keep. Allmusic.com defines it as a genre and explains it [2].

Further, it gets 573,000 Google hits see [3]. 22 Google News hits including Billboard Magazine see [4] Google books results show that the term is widely used in rock music literature see [5]. Clear verifiable evidence for the notable term. Capitalistroadster 09:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, looking at the All music site, I finally see something that actually references this as a genre of music. However... Read the article. It describes the 'scene' that the genre developed in and what it developed from... But it says absolutely nothing about what defines the genre. I couldn't even find anything suitable to quote as being vague. There just wasn't anything at all. If we keep this page, how are we to define it? It can't simply stay as it is. It's completely worthless from a encyclopedic view right now. I mean, what type of music is Alternative metal? The only definitions you can use is going by bands that are similar to those listed on the allmusic.com page. There's still no useable musical definition Ilyon 09:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Google books results show that the term is widely used in rock music literature thats good. But without being derogtory, thats ROCK music, not METAL. Ive worked in the metal community for years, and its not a known term at all. When it is used, it splits hairs over Nu Metal bands that people do and dont like. Allmusic.com says it is a genre, thats great. I can give you about 5 metal archival sites that will openly tell you it doesnt exist. And without an actuall defination, its nothing more than a pet term, that hardcore fans of Nu Metal use to denote their favourite bands. Which is seemingly exactly what this article does. Either it needs to be deleted or merged into Nu Metal, their being no three productive ways about it. ~~Leyasu

• Speedy Keep as very obvious and commonly used term in widespread use. Whilst I know that there are today like 50,000 terms for styles of music, mainly because musicians are too afraid of being "boxed in" and want to be seen as "different" and "unique", the reality is that all of these ones exist, and we have to at least recognise the more common ones. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This isnt a common term IN the metal scene. This isnt even a genre of music. It has no defination, which by the RULES of Wikipedia, state that something cannot stay without a defination. Also, as a user previously mentioned, you can search anything almost on Google and find it. Lets search some made up genres, "Fried Metal" returns 1,590 results. Is it a new genre? No, i dont think so. "Savage Metal", it gets 720. "Scream Metal", gets a nice 4,160. Are any of these genres? No. They are all pet names for the favourite bands of people, to group bands of various genres together due to one very minor, and very undefining aspect to the bands music. This isnt a genre and doesnt warrant the article being kept. The best suggestion is to merge it with Nu Metal, and mention is as a name used sometimes for Nu Metal bands. Otherwise people are going to becontradicting several far more comprhensive, and defining genre articles. ~~Leyasu

• Keep: Alternative metal is a legitimate genre, mainly used to describe bands that are more metal than rock, but more rock than metal (to put it simply, anyway). Basically an "alternative form of metal" like the title suggests. Tool and System of a Down are perfect examples. MrHate 11:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. This is a good example of why nominators should research before nominating. I've given the article external links to Music.com, Business Week, and The New York Times. Durova 14:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Per nominator feedback, I change my comment to: this is a good example of why nominators should be impartial. Wikipedia is a community. It is more productive to edit an article than to engage in long discussions on AfD. The Internet has plenty of room outside of Wikipedia for efforts to assert one's POV. Durova 00:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this is asserting my POV, as you say. This article doesn't define anything. That's the entire point of an encyclopedia. How is this article useful if it doesn't? I have not found a genre definition for this anywhere. I looked this article over multiple times looking for a way to change it before nominating it for deletion. If the article can be kept as a useful Wikipedia page, I'd be happier than deleting it. However, it's been this way for some time and it doesn't seem to be about to change. It's as simple as that. Ilyon 01:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally find this comment insulting. Yes, I did look into it. Think about those articles you put up. The Business Week article is just an interview with a college student who's labelled an expert by the columnist because he even knows: "... The distinction between "black metal" and "death metal."" Hardly a huge accomplishment. Especially when the interviewee goes on to state that: "Black-metal bands, however, are really into satanism. There have been reports of them killing people, burning churches, and that sort of thing." Some Black Metal bands are into Satanism, definitely, but the only band I've ever heard of in regards to killing people or burning churches is Mayhem... And only one member... Varg Vikernes. It's hardly a genre-wide phenomenon. On top of that, the only mention of alternative metal in this article is one sentence: "Today, it's split between mainstream-friendly rap [metal] and alternative metal, and hard rock." This article isn't even worth putting up as an external link. The New York Times link isn't even an article. It's a movie titled Alternative Metal. Hardly informative. The Music.com article is the exact same article as the one on Allmusic.com, which I already talked about. I'll talk about it a little further now. Here's an excerpt from said article:

"At its outset, alternative metal was a style united by its nonconformist sensibility rather than any immediately classifiable sound. Heavy metal was at the core of the music, but the bands were too offbeat and their influences too eclectic to fit into the thrash underground, so their main audiences were mostly alternative fans who liked heavy guitar rock. However, after grunge helped make alternative metal more palatable to mass audiences, it became the most popular style of heavy metal in the '90s, particularly when more aggressive bands began standardizing its sound. That approach was a far cry from alternative metal's early days in the late '80s, when it represented the least categorizable heavy music around."

First of all, again, it doesn't define anything. The only thing resembling a 'definition' that I've seen is the band lists themselves. That's circular reasoning, as I already stated before. Secondly, is it just me, or is this history smacking incredibly of the history of nu-metal? I doubt I'm the only one noticing the similarities... Check the articles and compare them. Look at the bands list. I can see merging the articles (but since this one adds absolutely nothing to the other article, it's kind of pointless), or deleting this one. However, this article has absolutely no encyclopedic value. How can it be useful when it can't even define what it's trying to talk about. The article can't even give the correct genre.Ilyon 19:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User Ilyon has just eleborated on all points i was vaguely making. I hope these points, which are key reasonings in several articles on Wikipedia about deleting and merging pages are noted. Leyasu 19:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody please explain why this article should be kept when it contradicts the well known genre Nu Metal, and is essentially a pet name for it? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a site for there to be 101 pet names of things. (Leyasu 15:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC))

• • If you think that Nu Metal is a contested name for the genre then by all means edit the article. Offer reputable citations for that point of view. You may oppose this term but over 650,000 targeted Google hits and major periodicals disagree. Durova 16:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont oppose the term, i oppose it being used as something it isnt. As pet name for Nu Metal bands, it should therefore be merged into the Nu Metal catagory. Leyasu 17:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • Let's see if I understand this: your argument seems to speak for a merge/redirect with the larger article at Nu Metal because the distinction between the terms is poorly defined? That would be a valid argument. I'll keep my vote as it is for now and supply a few links for other editors to evaluate. [6], [7], [8], [9]. It would seem that if the articles were merged then Nu Metal should become a part of Alternative Metal, since Alternative Metal is the older style. This would take some serious rewriting. Durova 17:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -->Chemical Halo 18:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge the two articles. Nu Metal is the far more known, and far more common name. Also, that article mostly says what it is. If Alternative Metal is then edited into that article, it would save a lot of rewriting and requests for a new Nu Metal article. Alternative Metal has still failed to be given a defination by anyone, as such, is just repeating what is commonly known as Nu Metal, and as such, this could be mainly solved simply by mentioning that Alternative Metal is another name for Nu Metal in the opening paragraph of the Nu Metal article, which is also nominated for having Rap Metal (which much like Alternative Metal) repeats what Nu Metal says in a disorganized, undescriptive manner. Leyasu 18:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. Please read the Alternative metal talk page for my opinions. Additionally, I have begun a complete reworking of the article, and I should have it done by the weekend. WesleyDodds 09:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. No, this is a very common term. While there is easy dispute as to whether the genre has anything to do with "true heavy metal", it is a legitimate definition and there is no reason to merge it with nu-metal or rap-metal or other asinine ideas brought up. Danteferno 22:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"While there is easy dispute as to whether the genre has anything to do with "true heavy metal", it is a legitimate definition and there is no reason to merge it with nu-metal or rap-metal or other asinine ideas brought up" This from someone who claims Gothic Doom isnt a genre because it has bands you wish where Gothic Metal in it. Also, i refernce people to this comment stream:

"Keep Another (continued) VFD case of those with no expertise on heavy metal - This is blatantly at me. Dante has an ongoing war of futition with me over the article Gothic Metal, and is reverting many changes, minor and major to articles because of this. He previously vandalised the Symphonic Metal page because it didnt suit his claims made on that discussion, and his whole vote is due to his flame war against me. Thus i ask his vote to be stricken. Also, i am trying to put a project together, using Wikipedia. I can also post an article listing many, many common and well known Metal Band archives, and non of them refer to genres like 'Circus Metal', 'Avantgarde Metal' or 'Alternative Metal'. Please leave a message on my talk page for comments about that article." Taken from: [This article. Leyasu 23:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please - give me a break. All concerned will see the revision history of the Symphonic Metal article and agree that my edits are not vandalism. Smears, smears, smears, Leyasu, you have a new (and more silly) one each week. Look at all the votes above - they don't seem to be in your favor - why is that? And why do you think this vast disagreement with your claims is still me vs. you? Really, give me a break. --Danteferno 00:45 8 December (UTC)

To point out the various smears Dante has made against me: Vandalism of random articles, Use of sock puppets, Delibartly inciting revert wars, i was in one which Dante was told not to start with me), Accusations of being a troll, Accusation of no expertise, Accusation of being a child, Accusation of racism. So far all these have proven to of been me NOT doing them. Also, Dant's contributions page should be checked to find he has done nothing but attack me for the last monght, not making any helpfull edits, and has then only responded to things when i have moved on with argument and moved into the whole, general issue. Also notice how he is directly talking to me in the board, and claiming that anything i say about him is smearing, yet its ok for him to make untrue accusations about me without it being smearing. (Edit) Also ive made my case in this argument, and it has been heard. I ask for Dante's vote to be striken as its an obvious vote against me due to his obvious personal dislike of me. If the article is voted to stay i suggest the merger, as do others. That is my vote, and i am free to make it any way i wish. If i am outvoted, fair enough, but with that comes the obligation of those who voted against me to amend the article into something worthwhile of its creation, lest it would be nominated for deletion, again. Leyasu 01:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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.