Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blues Metal

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 was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blues Metal

Blues Metal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is nothing more than uncited original research describing a style of music that the article itself even claims is "not widely considered to be a genre." This is nothing but one person's opinions on a style of music and a few specific bands that he/she happens to like. I feel like a tourist (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it says its not widley considered to be an actual genre of music but that doesn't make it any less real than rap or black metal I should know I wrote the damn article take the deletion tag off of it I think its a nice enjoyable article and come on cut me some slack I have only written like 2 articales and one of them got deleted. I was hoping that through my blues metal articale the term would become more popular and does anyone actually read these Articles for deletion pages anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs)

  • Weak Keep if the author or someone else references sources. Plenty of them on google books. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Crasher, you're not going to win over any hearts with that kind of statement. Anyway, a Google search comes up with a few websites mentioning metal blues/blues metal, but I'm not seeing any reliable sources. Maybe someone else can find them. APK yada yada 07:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment per my vote. Google search and scholar are unlikely sources in this case, however there are plenty of sources in Google Books, I would suggest referencing otherwise delete. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God I hate when People think im tryng to win over any hearts besides ive updated the articale check it out tell me what you think. Wait you found blues metal crap on google im checking that out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs)

I was referring to when you said, "I wrote the damn article take the deletion tag off of it." Being uncivil is unnecessary. APK yada yada 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

*Weak keep because of mentions in a Google Book search. It could be an interesting article if RS are added and a general cleanup. APK yada yada 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Changing to delete. I didn't know there was already an article for Blues rock until it was mentioned below. APK yada yada 10:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright sorry but come on is there really a good reason to delete the articale which like i said doesnt mention a thing about blues metal not being a real genre it just says that its not a widely used term. please give me specific things you dont like about the articale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 08:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Personally, I feel that we should allow bands to blend different styles of music as they want without having to give every different sound a new label. There are already articles for various common styles of blues and metal, as well as an article on Blues rock, which is basically all rock that has a more obvious blues influence than other rock (despite rock in general being derived from blues from the start). You state that most of the artists who are considered to be in the genre of Blues Metal (and all of the ones that you specifically mention) are metal pioneers. This is true, and the reason for it is simply because metal in it's beginning stages was simply a "heavier" version of blues-rock. Therefore, while there may be definite hybrids of blues and metal out there, what your article really describes is early metal, which was simply the transition from rock (which came from blues) to a heavier form of rock which came to be known as metal. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on genres that are actually widely regarded as genres, and perhaps more importantly, there are articles on many bands such as those that you mentioned in this article. Just how Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple went about creating their own hybrid of blues and metal (metal, of course, being in its earliest stages at the time) can be discussed on the pages that are specific to those bands (and with references, of course) rather than needing its own page. I don't know though, it's just my opinion. This article very well could stay if it was just given some references and whatnot. I feel like a tourist (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but I dont quite know what references are and you say its not a very good page because nobody thinks blues metals an actual genre but come on who uses terms like grindcore or death rock they have pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • References on Wikipedia should take the form of footnotes placed within the text, which give the source from which you obtained the information contained in the article. This helps readers tell the difference between verifiable facts and other people's opinions or original research. What you need to do is find some sources that prove your statements to be factual and reference them in your articleI feel like a tourist (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel like an idiot toddler but i still dont quite understand but ill try

  • Aaaaaaand your references need to be reliable sources (WP:RS) such as books and reliable news sources Try Google books, as our friends recommended. I feel like a tourist (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

well now your just being difficult ive got references all over its not like ime just making up genres for fun come on cant you do anything you know what all this crap is. I dont know if your still here but check it out now i think ive got some great references—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 08:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Rather than just listing references, you need to have footnotes that link those references to specific claims made in the article. Right now you have three references, and I highly doubt that two of them have anything to do with this article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

which 2? if i know it mite help me create better articales —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 09:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, I'm pretty sure that now you're just completely joking, so I'll do you a favor and delete them. I feel like a tourist (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry that was a dumb question but you gotta say its gotten alot better with my changes and yours. Maybe you can take the deletion tag off now. I think blues metal is th best music ever however sabbath is my favourite band—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • At this point the article remains almost exactly as it was when I nominated it for deletion. It's great that you enjoy listening to blues metal, but this does not mean that you should have your own Wikipedia page for it. I feel like a tourist (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Obvious delete Blatant neologism per author's own comment above ("not widley considered to be an actual genre of music" - spelling typo in the original). Yes, you can find results when you enter two random terms together on a google. Here are the results of grunge rap, rhythm metal, gothic country, baroque hip hop, jazz trance, gothic reggae ... need I go on? Please disregard the weak keep vote that was made on this rather flimsy basis. As I write this, there are only two websites being referred to on this article. Neither are reliable sources. This source includes "greatest hits," "supergroups," "amazing guitars," "great drums" and "concept albums" in its list of metal genres. This is merely a web directory with a fancy name. The most absurd thing though is that this term is being used in reference to bands from decades ago and yet is not widely used in the many authoritative, reliable sources that have been published on heavy metal music. If that does not scream out neologism, I do not know what does. --Bardin (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk about it I mean who says all of those things can't be musical genres. I think I feel Like a Tourist is trying to work with me your just being annoying. My articales perfet and should have been made long time ago when blues metal artists first started playing. This is my first articale with actul references I also made Mike Dyball's page and edited alot of others. Ok im guessing everyones gone well lets pick this up later.

Wikipedia:Be bold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 10:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete article is purely speculative. Much of it, as I see, is redundant to Blues rock or Hard rock. I think this could be an article at some point but only if someone takes the time to do some research and find some actual reputable sources using the term. -Verdatum (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Bardin said all that needed to be said about this unsourced, all-but-nonexistant neologism - heck, I even get 360 hits from "satanic Mozartian music." I strongly suggest that the creator look over the links starting in WP:FIVE so that he can get an understanding as to what kind of material is permitted on Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy close Article was three minutes old when AfDed. The nom removed the sources, then tagged the living hell out of it with {{fact}} tags. The creator seems to be working towards making the article decent; give it time. Their reasoning about making the article in order to give the term wider mention isn't good, but I'm seeing enough in g-books to make this seem notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Read the rest of the AfD discussion before you question the nom's motives, please. --SmashvilleBONK! 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Smashville. All I'm trying to do here is keep bad articles off of wikipedia. Someone out there might be able to make this article good, but its creator is certainly not one of those people. The article as it stands is nothing but a bunch of poorly articulated personal opinions. And to JeremyMcCracken, the ref's that were removed were un-footnoted citations of "Race Consciousness: African-American Studies for the New Century" and "Database Systems for Advanced Applications: 10th International Conference ... By Lizhu Zhou, Beng Chin Ooi, Xiaofeng Meng." No doubt these sources had nothing to do with the article. I also removed two links to completely unverifiable and unreliable hommade websites. All I'm trying to do is show Crasher what should and what should not go into a Wiki article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Smashville that Jeremy McMcracken should read the rest of this AfD discussion before questioning the nominator's motive as well as providing another link to a google books search result, only this time with the term "blues metal" in quotation marks. Here are the google books search results for "grunge rap", "rhythm metal", "gothic country", "jazz trance", "complex metal", "country metal", "baroque metal", "romantic metal" ... need I go on again? All in quotation marks. Please do not go around voting keep for articles just because the term turns up hits on a google books search. I strongly suggest again that the closing admin completely disregard all keep votes made on this flimsy basis. For those who want to vote keep, please find a reliable source that unquestionably asserts that this is a legitimate subgenre of heavy metal music and not a mere neologism. --Bardin (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify that the speedy close was because the article was so new. I wish the nom hadn't removed the links, but I was pointing out that it wasn't complete OR, which it looked like at first glance, not accusing the nom of trying to pull a fast one, so please don't be offended. I was half asleep at the time.
The ELs looked relevant to me; I pulled them up first. They're not homemade as in geocities, but showing classification schemes on a couple of websites, which, to me, are valid for showing some level of notability, albeit not helping the content much.
I think the g-books are sufficient to demonstrate notability and show it to be a legitimate sub-genre, which is exactly why I included them. (Not the number of hits; it throws a lot of false positives.) A couple of examples- this one credits it as a style created by Foghat; this one (not very nicely) calls it the style of Great White. Per Bardin, it's a discussion, not a vote, so nothing is discarded. I'm an inclusionist; I get the impression that you're a deletionist, or even have a pet peeve for genre-related articles, but I personally think there's sufficient coverage. Just my opinion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW the book refs that were removed are on g-books. I see where the creator was going with the first, the cited page, note 15 deals with the subject. I think some decent context could be added from it. The second deals with music at least, but I don't see what it's supposed to show. I think their citation of the Led Zeppelin biography was for the phrase "...in a variation of the heavy-metal blues espoused by Led Zeppelin...", but that's a lot weaker of a connection that some other sources could make. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you can refrain yourself from painting those you disagree with in a negative light. You did this above with the nominator and you've done it again with me by suggesting that I am a deletionist or have a pet peeve for genre related articles. You have obviously not taken a look at my contributions otherwise you would have realized how absurd both accusations are. I made some valid criticism against this article and find it quite insulting that you would suggest that I'm opposed to it is merely because I have some superficial pet peeve or am just a deletionist. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. I merely follow wikipedia's policies and and the guideline on neologism is quite clear on this matter: A new term doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. The book on Deep Purple uses the phrase "heavy metal blues" in passing and the Rough Guide book uses the term "blues-metal" also in passing. Neither discusses the term in any way whatsoever. Note 15 in the book on Race Consciousness does not even use the term blues metal. It only mentions in passing the phrase "metal's blues ancestry." It has no relevance to this discussion since nobody is disputing metal's blues ancestry but the supposed existence of a genre known as blues metal. The Database Systems for Advanced Applications has no relevance to this article either and so despite your insinuation above then, the nominator was perfectly right to remove both books as references from the article. This situation is even more absurd than most other neologism given that it is a term used in reference to bands from decades ago and yet there are only trivial mentions of the term. One can easily find sources using other neologisms in passing including romantic metal for Cradle of Filth, jazz-trance-folk for Snakefarm, baroque metal for Vinnie Moore, need I go on yet again? --Bardin (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well what else do you think I should do to the articale I like it but then I made it and I could 2 make it good Im just not sure if it needs much else and anyways if you think you can make it better why don't you instead of ripping on my articale skills. There are other things i need to say to Mr. I feel like a tourist you said that i was bassically describing early metal but think about it what if people played music like that today then it wont be early metal it will be blues metal and you said "I feel that we should allow bands to blend different styles of music as they want without having to give every different sound a new label" well iv got news its a little late for that just look at punk blues, funk punk, Deathrock, Deathcore the point is you bassically said there should not be fusion genres do you plan to delete every fusion genre page on wikipedia? well im adding things and honestly think its getting better check it out please give me feedback. And yo whats up with all citation needed crap whenever i try to fix them it just makes it worse so someone with way more experience then me should be doing it didn't you see my WIKIPEDIA: BE BOLD thing earlier come on be bold.--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel like many of you want to delete it because its not a real genre but its real to me and many of my friends so it got to be real to oher people aswell. if someone made pages called punk rap, or gothic blues, or Southern brutal blackened funneral death doom metal hip-hop jazz grunge nobody is to say they don't exist (exept maybe that last one) just because its not real to you doesnt mean its not real--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Perhaps, but Wikipedia's rules do not permit articles on subjects the creators made up -- please see WP:NFT -- or where you cannot supply reliable sources. The definition of a reliable source would be a newspaper, a book or a magazine article discussing the subject. I'm afraid that you can't look at this as a case of "How do we bend the rules to let my article stay?" What we do here is see whether an article meets the rules; if it does not, it can't stay.  RGTraynor  01:24, 6 May 2008

(UTC)

Im not making it up I have Refferences check them out Blues metal exists. I don't exactly think theres a typye o music called power violence but its on wikipedia. Exactly what rules am i breaking. I said its real its just not real to you. Blues Metal is a fusion genre created by Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply: As it happens, the Smoke On The Water book you referenced is in my local library. I had occasion to pop on over and look up your reference. The term "blues metal" is not found. Would you like to try again?  RGTraynor  13:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to Reply:This guy probably won't see this but for anyone visiting this page he didn't pay much attention when reaing the deep purple story because if you look up metal blues on google books you'll see where I got my reference from--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BE BOLD--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Im sure you all have good reasons for whatever you said but I just don't see it--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


  • Along with the fact that "blues metal" is not widely recognized as an actual genre, this text taken from the intro paragraph of the heavy metal article explains why there is no need for a separate article on so-called "blues metal:"
"Heavy metal (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. With roots in blues-rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, heavy, guitar-and-drums-centered sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion and fast guitar solos"
I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no nee for any articale on wikipedia--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 07:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Power violence isn't widely recognized either but its got a page because even though its not widely recognized it is still recognized just like blues metal. The way I see it there is no decent reaon to deleate my articale.--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The Power violence article has a valid, verifiable reference. Yours does not.  RGTraynor  13:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm no real wikipedian but I just found this article ridiculous. I'm sorry if I'm kinda rude but I think I'll get straight to the point for Crasher- Your article has horrid grammar, your level of spelling isn't suitable for writing a full article without spell check, you lack references/sources, you have less knowledge of page making than me, the article is ridiculously redundant throughout, and you don't seem to know what wikipedia is for. This is more like a blog...actually more of a low marked 8th grade research paper with a bunch of red inked corrections. Except it lacks sources. Even here you're pulling information from nowhere, implying grindcore, rap, and powerviolence aren't real genres. The difference between those and your article is those terms are in relatively common use by a community dedicated to that sort of music, and rap's been established as music so no more "rap aint real music if it dont have melody" arguments. If I personally heard someone refer to Zeppelin, Sabbath, Deep Purple or some other band as blues metal, that might warrant a crotch punching. There are sites/critics that use, for example, "progessive emo" to define bands like Coheed and Cambria, and The Fall of Troy, but that doesn't make them real genres. One because they are few and far between, two because not too many people take them seriously and three that sort of genre may cause a couple bewildered looks. Just because I like those bands doesn't mean I'm gonna write an article with original/half assed research that doesn't follow the wikipedia article standards at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.251.144 (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey don't hold back--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So im not much of an editor if your better than me fix it and im not being sarcastic or rude (like some people I could mention) I really want you to help me also I think that a deletion tag is a bit extreme maybe just an original research or unverifiable sources tag like Power violence oh and my sources are to reliable--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whos to say anythings not a real genre of music if someone says rock is not a real genre (not that anyone would) that doesn,t mean it isn't so just cause you say blues metal doesn't exist doesn't make you right. Doesn't anybody find my articale good?--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This Probably isn't any of my buisness but . . . YOU'RE ALL FAGS! I can't believe how long you've been arguing just let him keep the articale and get on with your pathetic lives--I POWN ALL NOOBS (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)— I POWN ALL NOOBS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • You know, it's funny that our mysterious new friend "pown all noobs" is the only other person in the world who mis-spells the word "article" the EXACT same way as crasherisntmydogsname has spelled it ("articale") throughout this discussion! Crasher, please be WP:CIVIL, and leave our sexual preference out of the discussion. We have nothing against you or your opinions, it's just that according to Wikipedia guidelines, we think that your article does not belong on Wikipedia. Just because you have dragged this AfD on for this long arguing with all of us is no reason for us to give in and let you keep an article simply because you want to keep it. We have explained to you over and over why we think this article is a lost cause, and the fact that you really want your article to be on wikipedia is not going to make us suddenly change our minds. So may I say to you, please, stop, this has gone on for too long; we have explained the rationale for our opinions to you numerous times, you have told us how you feel, and arguing back and forth is not going to change the fact that most of us want this article to be deleted. I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though that was very uncalled for he's right we've been arguing forever over the stupidest crap and since I wannakeep the articale why can't we just end it its not like I'm giving out false information just not widely used information which I would like to increase the usage of isn't that what wikipedia's for? And besides it's not like it won't get improved over time.--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok your right what I did was way out of line and I guess my articale isn't really that good so let's just delete it and I'm sorry I suppose Wikipedia guidelines should be followed.--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2008 (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.