Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark 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 Delete. Nakon 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dark metal

Dark metal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Genre that doesn't quite seems to exist. Seems to be a generic term for bands that don't quite fit in other categories. I admit that I have used the term before, but there seems to be no universal definition- the only real source is the reasonably dubious doom-metal.com, which states "Dark-metal can have many meanings. It is often used to describe, as the name might indicate, dark music within the metal genre." Which seems to imply that even they don't really have a definition. I am aware of how much the term is actually used, but don't believe there is actually anything concrete we can say in an article. The current article seems to be mostly original research. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The first sentence says it all, it's a subjective term. Appears to have been coined by a single band as their album title, not as a genre. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a common or notable genre name used within heavy metal music. The article appears to be original research. Mh29255 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do not see anything wrong with having such article here.There are many bands that mix so much genres and it's easier just to call them dark metal.And also - in the metal-archives there are quite a lot bands called "dark metal" and doom-metal.com lists dark metal as important subgenre. So, face the truth - it should be kept.Yeah the article's badly written but this is not a reason to delete it.So keep it! Xr 1 (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you have failed to actually address my main concerns with the article. The the fact you believe it is harmless is irrelevent, and in any case, it is doing harm, as the link explains. We know many bands do mix these genres, but that does not justify original research. Metal-archives is unreliable, especially for contentious issues such as genre, and doom-metal.com mentions it, yes, but even admits that there isn't a concrete definition, plus its status of being a reliable source could be debated. I admit that being badly written is not a good reason to delete- but a good article couldn't be written on this topic, as far as I see. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

metal-archives is the biggest internet source about heavy metal bands and music and as far as I can see it is much realiable than wikipedia... why don't you just accept that the genre should be definited just as a mix of many influences,and metal styles? I mean, do you really can put Shade Empire or Allgaloch in just one category?And..doing harm? hmm I do not see anithing that harms me in that article -It does not give untrue information.Yeah, it needs a research for sources and information, but there's nothing that can proove that everything wirtten there is fake.And please do not argue with me, everyone has an opinion, and should express it here.Finally the article would be deleted if more people think this is right, not if you defete your theory so pationately. If you want to say something else to me - post it in my talk page. Xr 1 (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Replying to points made on talk page, so as not to clutter the debate. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets put it in that way - Here is my point why the article should be kept: The avant-garde style plays more and more important role and many bands start using untypical for metal music song structures, instruments etc. Styles such as black metal and gothic metal are one of the most popular genres of metal music.I mean - goth metal was created at about ten years ago and now there are so many bands playing that style.And black metal has increased its popularity in recent times.And may be because of that there are quite a lot (mostly new) bands mixing the two styles. Electronic music have become really popular, and typical for electronic music instruments are now used in many music genres.Metal is not an exception.Much metal bands have used (dark)ambient,industrial,neo-classical,darkwave sounds.And some typical for these styles projects are popular within the metal comunity. As you can see there is a new wave in the metal music, wave of mixing different syles and influences. And dark metal is a much bigger mix, mix of all that.In a few years I'm absolutely sure much more bands would be labelled as Dark Metal. Yeah at this time the article is badly written, but give it a shot it could be re-written Xr 1 (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

here are some sources I've found:

  • Dark Metal:

[1], [2] [3], [4], [5]about the popularity of gothic metal:[6],[7],[8],[9];about the popularity of black metal:[10],[11],[12],[13]; about avant-garde metal:[14],[15],[16],[17];popularity of ambient/darkwave/electro in the metal comunity:[18][19], [20], [21], [22]

  • modern metal bands usually combine traits from two-three and even more styles.I don't think this needs a source.

I guess this prooves what I've said. Xr 1 (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Each link in turn...
    1. List of bands- not an article. Not a reliable source.
    2. Ditto. The closest thing that site has to an article on the topic calls it subjective, as we have discussed at length.
    3. Ditto the first.
    4. Ditto again.
    5. Message board post. About the least reliable thing in the world.
  • The rest are irrelevent- they don't even mention 'dark metal'. What do these links prove, exactly? J Milburn (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The opinion I shared about the metal future!Didn't you read the small letters above? As I said - there is a new wave of mixing styles etc... and these and these styles have gaind much popularity and thus they would be mixed, and this mixture is called dark metal etc...
  • And yes - this is list for bands labelled as dark metal.If they are not dark metal then what are they? gothhic-doom-blac-avant/gard-electro? - that is dark metal.

Xr 1 (talk)

Most of them fall into the metal subgenres of black metal, doom metal, death metal. They are often sitting between two subgenres, but they are definitely not "dark metal". Zouavman Le Zouave 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Maybe they are dark metal, maybe they aren't- I don't really care. Just because the genre exists, doesn't mean that we can have an article. We can't have an article without reliable sources, it's as simple as that. Yeah, maybe those sources do share your view about the direction of metal- that's wonderful, but they say nothing about 'dark metal', so how you intend to use them to show that it exists is beyond me. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You said that what I've written is just an "original research" without something that can proove it.And I gave sources to proove that my view for the metal future will really happen.And as I can remember my view states that Dark Metal would be the most popular mix.Use logic my friend.
  • "Just because the genre exist" - well, yes.Just because metal exist, just because music exist, just because everything exist there is an article about them in this site.
  • realiable sources - yeah, they are not many about this style, but there are articles without any sources there - so they should be deleted too, rigtht?
  • In reply to your three points-
  • None of those later sources talk about 'dark metal', so even the name is original research. Need I say more? Those articles are not about dark metal, and so can not be used to verify its notability.
  • Everything that exists? I'll go and write Wikipedia user J Milburn's right foot now then. How many times do I have to say this? No reliable sources = no article. Wikipedia is not about everything that exists.
  • If you think that there are other articles that should be deleted, feel free to nominate them. That's irrelevent here, we know that other crap exists, we are discussing this article. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

why I am even bothering... but still, look, I know the latest sources don't mention "dark metal"But they prove the whole opinion with the small letter abouve.I gave all of them because you said that my whole point is "made up" (original research) And if they proove that my point is likely to happen thus the dark metal subgenre would develop more and more in future.'why you are trying to delete an atricle since it will be created again sooner or leater??! And if it exists, and if there is already an article about it, why you are trying to delete it?!It gives useful information for a bunch of bands!And about this realiable sources -everything about them is subgective!I can say that may of the so called "reliable" sources are full of untrue information...However it's the baest that can be find in the Internet.As I can see doom-metal.com lists this style - use it as reliable source!! Xr 1 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Whether or not they 'prove' your opinion, they are useless as sources for dark metal. Whether it is likely to happen or not, there are no sources, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I have nominated the article for deletion because there are no reliable sources, and because it is based upon original research. Also, doom-metal.com is probably not a reliable source, but even if it is, a single reliable source is simply not enough, not to mention that the source is too vague to be of any real use anyway. J Milburn (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should every article have sources?If it hasn't -does this mean it gives fake infomation?-No.Unless someone can proove the info is fake.But if you want sources - doom-metal.com clearly states what dark metal is.Yeah, it doesn't have a stable definiton.So what?It is used frequently, there are bands labelled as such and as I can see we have reach a consensus that this style exists.Yes, wikipedia is not for eveything that exists, but if someone (like me) is interested in this existing thing - it should have page here.And it already does.Also the example with the right foot have nothing to do in this case.This is a music genre and people should be able to know what kind of music is.And as I explained, sooner or later the page will be created again... Xr 1 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • "Why should every article have sources?" ---> WP:V & WP:RS
  • "if someone (like me) is interested in this existing thing - it should have page here" ---> I'm interested in Wikipedia user J Milburn's right foot. Oh man, there aren't any reliable sources around or any notability about the subject. Should the article really be created, then? Cause if it is I will sure boost my edit count and create stuff about people's feet! No. It doesn't work that way.
  • "sooner or later the page will be created again..." ---> Sure, when the subject will be notable enough as reported by reliable and verifiable sources. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and will probably wait patiently while the genre will get the sources it needs. Zouavman Le Zouave 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As stated above, articles need to have sources that are verifiable and reliable, and be on a notable topic. If "dark metal" becomes an actual genre — enough that it is reported on by reliable sources — then the Wikipedia page can be re-created. --Managerpants (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete What is up with all of these stupid genres? This article, to say the least, sucks. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • DeleteI remain unconvinced that this qualifies as a legitimate subgenre. The article lacks reliable sources and constitutes original research. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom; I have used the term before, as the nominator said, but I agree that it seems to be a made up term. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:31, 22 January 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.