Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True metal (second nomination)

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. Singularity 01:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] True metal

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

This article, which used to cover an entirely different topic altogether, is rife with original research and unverified/unsourced claims. It seems to act as nothing more than a chance for various editors to list bands or subgenres that are "true metal" or not. The term itself, as the article states, is a subjective one coined by the metal band Manowar. So are we to consult Manowar to see what genres or bands should be listed here? And if not, then whose opinion carries enough weight to merit inclusion in this article? What's then to stop the creation of articles like True jazz or True rap? As I see it there are a few viable options here: delete altogether, redirect to Manowar, or simply restore the article to the state it was in circa August 17, 2005 and watchlist it. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Funny how it changed from an article about metals (elements) to an article about metal (music). Back on topic, because the term is subjective, to list an example, which is assumed to be absolute, would be to give an opinionated statement, which would violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As for the term itself, it is generally accepted that one should avoid neologisms, especially when the term is not widely used (at least, I see nothing to suggest widespread usage), or alone does not carry a good deal of significance or importance. Calgary 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As the article stands now, it's completely uncyclopedic and absolutely saturated with opinion. Even if you got the guys from Manowar to dish on this, I could still see this article as a battleground for disgruntled editors to revert-war- "No, this is True Metal!" "No, you've got it wrong, THIS is True Metal!" I don't see any kind of objective, source-backed consensus coming from this, ever. Blam it. TheLetterM 05:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as POV and because of WP:OR and also for generally being awful. Ford MF 05:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Completely unsourced POV article which, as TheLetterM mentioned, is just asking for an edit war if it's kept. fuzzy510 06:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced POV. JIP | Talk 06:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JIP. Thin Arthur 08:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article might as well be caled "Random MetalHead Diary". Unsourced and is one huge POV. 74.124.33.181 03:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• They forgot to mention that boron, silicon, germanium, arsenic, antimony, and a couple others aren't really metal either. Oh, wait, that's covered in Metalloid. The periodic table of elements isn't based on personal opinions or original research, but this article is. Delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologism that never got past that stage. Antelan ^talk 04:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Arghhhh! Delete! Per all of the above. Original research that is completely unsourced, POV material, relatively unknown neologism, poorly written and poorly structured... Seraphim ^Whipp 10:08, 18 August 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.