Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Wave of American 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 no consensus. Bucketsofg 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
[edit] New Wave of American Metal
Neologism. Most of the bands mentioned are metalcore. No sources. Original Research. Inhumer 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Clearly a play on NWOBHM, with no sources. Definetly someone trying to have there own neologism advertised. --Jimmi Hugh 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The genre is not a play on NWOBHM, in the 2005 documentary Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, New Wave of American Metal is documented as one of metal's subgenres, and clearly lists some bands which practice the genre. The article is not original research, it just hasn't had any sources cited, sources do exist as I have come across the term before in different websites and in the documentary mentioned above. Also the bands listed are considered to be metalcore, but that's because New Wave of American Metal is a subgenre of metalcore and the article clearly states that. I did not write the article and I truly hate the genre but I realize the subject matter is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia and thus I say keep the article. --Leon Sword 23:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, plus no sources in an article DOES make it original research until such point that sources are provided. At best, add a paragraph to metalcore, as it's a subgenre. DarkSaber2k 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete OR, play on NWOBHM, no sources... Delete it! Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not accepted by the metal community at large, neologism. Ours18 01:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Anyone with a serious interest in, and a greater than surface-level knowledge of, metal music will acknowledge the need for this article. While a degree of scepticism is understandable on the part of some members in the abscence of extensive sources, I must stress that this is primarily due to the relative recency of the developments covered by this article rather than any serious factual inaccuracies. The key issue is that the style has not yet been given a specific term that you will see applied across the music scene as a whole; 'NWOAM' is the first to allude to the genre specifically, so the article's title is bound to generate some debate for now. The fact remains that the style itself is a mainstream audience oriented offshoot of influences taken from the three genres listed under "stylistic origins" in the article rather than a strict subgenre of any of the three, so in my opinion the need for the article is unquestionable. Under the circumstances I feel that the current title is a suitable one. I believe that efforts should be focused on sourcing the article with every new development rather than considering deletion, which I would believe to be an action taken out of a lack of in-depth understanding of the music rather than a learned and measured response to the article's shortcomings. Please do keep it and help, if you can, to source and develop. Inflammator 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment You say: "primarily due to the relative recency of the developments" and " the style has not yet been given a specific term that you will see applied across the music scene as a whole"... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't predict that the "genre" or "scene" will be notable in the future, for it isn't as of now. And if it doesn't even have a specific term for it, it is that the scene itself isn't recognized. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 09:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Re:Comment You missed the following words though, namely " 'NWOAM' is the first to allude to the genre specifically, so the article's title is bound to generate some debate for now ", which it is, and I understand it to be fair. However I would say that you are mistaken if you believe that the genre is not recognised; the association is a somewhat new one and it takes time before widespread usage of terminology can be seen across the media, but that does not mean that that the subject matter is some sort of fabricated speculation. A quick Google search revealed a few links that I'll direct you to as evidence of usage of this term and its connotations beyond, and yet consistent, with the article's content: 1) A news posting on God Forbid's reputed label, Century Media Records' official website on the 23rd of March, 2007 specifically refers to the band as NWOAM in the sentence: "Forerunners of the New Wave of American Metal scene, New Jersey's GOD FORBID, will hit the road in May on The Monsters of Mayhem 2 Tour as direct support to Hatebreed, with Evergreen Terrace, The Acacia Strain and After The Burial in the support slots." link. 2) A music website called the "Oregon Music Guide" specifically refers to the band Killswitch Engage as a NWOAM band in the sentence: "In Flames is currently on tour with Killswitch Engage, one of America's top metal bands and part of the current New Wave of American Metal." link. 3) Although probably not a very reputable and encyclopaedic reference, the last.fm website has NWOAM under its genre tags. A quick look at artists that fall under the tag is consistent with the bands listed in the article. In addition the station associated with the tag has been created by 21 people, so it is not just a one person idea. link. In short, I just want to say that the developments do exist and are not of a speculative nature and sources can be found, but for reasons outlined above, are not available in plenty. Lastly, I return to the first statement I made, which alludes to a need for a greater understanding of the music to distinguish between this accessible NWOAM genre and the genres of metalcore and melodic death metal. Calling these NWOAM bands metalcore would be like calling Rage Against the Machine nu metal. It's more than just a scene; the musical approach itself differs. Inflammator 13:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You say: "the association is a somewhat new one and it takes time before widespread usage of terminology can be seen across the media". You can't use Wikipedia to spread the word about it, and by the same opportunity stating what term to use. Now I'll use another quick Google search. When searching for the exact phrase: "new wave of american metal" on Google, we obtain a total of 591 results, and that includes Wikipedia results. Now if that is notable, then I think I should get my own article on the website for if we type "Zouavman Le Zouave" on Google, we get 661 results (and that's one of my numerous usernames). Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 14:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Re:Comment Wikipedia is not being used to "spread the word". The text that you have quoted was purely in reference to the fact that the number of quality sources at this early stage are bound to be fewer as opposed to an article with several years of coverage behind it to source from. Also, the Google comment was obviously not made to highlight the power of a Google search... the point was the reference to the specific links I retrieved to support my argument, not the exact number of hits retrieved by the search. Inflammator 18:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not a genre just a scene. --Pasajero 01:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it. It's not a genre, all the bands listed are just Metalcore bands, only time I've ever heard it mentioned in real life is in MetalHammer magazine (UK) applied to Lamb of God, and that's only in one small article. If you want you can write a short about it in Metalcore. Maurauth (...)
- Keep - I will post a Kerrang! scan of an article referring to the term ASAP. It has been used in music journalism, but not extensively. --Jamdav86 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also pretty redundant with the metalcore/related "-core" articles.--Danteferno 21:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's just a page about American metalcore bands, not a music genre. Bucketheader 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment No disrespect intended towards anyone here, but after reading some responses I really must question whether the predominant use of the word 'metalcore' here is based upon any sort of knowledge of this genre at all. I would advise anyone who believes that bands such as Trivium, Bullet For My Valentine, Killswitch Engage etc. are 'just metalcore' bands and not in fact practicioners of a different musical approach, to please listen to actual established metalcore acts such as Rorschach and Converge before undermining the need for this article. Of course, no ill feelings towards anyone who is well versed in the genre. Inflammator 14:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Well-written, relevant article. Metalcore Boy 11:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a legitimate genre, and many of the well known bands such as Chimaira, Killswitch Engage, Trivium etc... are continually referred to as NWOAHM. A book has also been published (link). However, the title should be New Wave of American Heavy Metal. Dmiles21 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research for a neologism. The term can be mentioned on the metalcore article if necessary. Prolog 08:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment If this article had been written a few years ago, it would certainly have been deemed a neologism because, yes, at the time the developments were really only just emerging. Even then, there were terms coined by journalists such as 'Gothencore' and 'Melodic deathcore' to differentiate this new style from its stylistic origin genres. It has been a number of years since then and we are at a stage where verifiability is possible and reputable sources are available in support of the article's contents as a distinct style. I believe that deleting this article at this stage would be nothing short of ignoring the clear cut case of an actual factual emergence of a new metal sub-genre and a legitimate offshoot of its own stylistic origins. If an article needs a fantastic number of reliable sources before it can be approved for Wikipedia, nothing relatively new will ever warrant a place here... I believe that in the presence of a short number of strong sources for core verifiability the article must be allowed to exist, even if necessarily only as a brief and consensual version, reviewed to ensure that it is throroughly NPOV. Pending further sources, the article may be expanded upon and built to ingrain a solid degree of verifiability across the current contents of the article. Inflammator 14:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Inflammator's reasons. Elsebroke 10:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC) — Elsebroke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete Although the phrase "the new wave of American metal" is used in about 10+ newspaper articles in the context of a second(?) wave of those participating in playing American metal, newspaper use of the combination of these six words is more by happenstance than some sort of WP:N subgenre of metalcore. In particular, there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on the topic. Thus, the topic does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. Without source material, the only Wikipedia option is to delete the article. -- Jreferee 23:00, 24 April 2007 (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.