Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest 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 of the debate was no consenses, but a merge may be in order. 4 votes to delete (including the nominator), 3 votes to keep (one of which is weak keep, but that does not discount the vote), 2 votes to keep or merge, 1 vote for a straight merge... and a partridge in a pear tree. -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 14:58 (UTC)
[edit] Forest metal
This is an imaginary, non-existent genre, marginally discernable from black metal and/or other styles only by lyrical content. Spearhead 3 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
- Merge into Heavy metal music if this exists. — Chameleon 3 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
- Delete. Again, only difference appears to be lyrics. And there are only a few bands who the writer can even claim to be anywhere near 'Forest Metal'. --Maru 3 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
- Delete, probably a nonexistent genre (has less credibility than Tolkien metal, which was sarcastically redirected to Mithril in its VfD), and most of the first several pages of Google hits have nothing to do with any style of music. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. Google finds about 1000 matches for "forest metal", once you filter out the furniture[1]. Appears to be a semi-legitimate genre. Pburka 4 July 2005 02:10 (UTC)
- Keep. Lyrical content is a valid basis to distinguish musical sub-genres.--Pharos 4 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
- Comment for Pharos, Pburka, and whoever else might know. I'll agree to that. Christian metal is one notable/controversial case of this, and I'd say Tolkien metal is too, to a lesser extent. But are there any bands that claim forest metal as their genre, rather than as a label indiscriminately slapped on them? Or is the term used often by metal magazines/ezines/publications? If there are, then I'll change my vote... but it doesn't appear to be in common use in the metal scene... I follow metal somewhat but have never heard of this genre. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
- Comment. I admit I do not follow metal myself; but I wonder how closely you follow metal coming from Scandinavia, where this genre is said to be based.--Pharos 4 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
- I'm no expert, but accoring to an epinions member, Opeth has self-identified as forest metal. Pburka 4 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
- Comment for Pharos, Pburka, and whoever else might know. I'll agree to that. Christian metal is one notable/controversial case of this, and I'd say Tolkien metal is too, to a lesser extent. But are there any bands that claim forest metal as their genre, rather than as a label indiscriminately slapped on them? Or is the term used often by metal magazines/ezines/publications? If there are, then I'll change my vote... but it doesn't appear to be in common use in the metal scene... I follow metal somewhat but have never heard of this genre. --Idont Havaname 4 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)
- Delete, not every band has its own genre. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:10 (UTC)
- Going to stick my neck out and go for a Keep... this is a fairly well written argument that passes the google test, and I've heard of this somewhere before (although I can't remember where). Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 22:04 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Maybe I'm a sucker, but there's just enough here to convince me it's not vanity. I've certainly seen worse. RoySmith 4 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
- Keep (or merge). There's no such thing as too many subgenres in metal. Bollocks. Bobsky 7 July 2005 23:27 (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.
