Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groove metal (3rd 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Groove metal

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The term "Groove metal" is a neologism. After a very extensive original research and synthesis of published material has been removed from the article, there is literally nothing left. The article contains no single reliable source about the term or concept; but only sources that use the term - as it is required in neologism policy.

When voting, keep in mind that this is not about gaining enough votes for Keep and outnumbering the nominator, as it turned out the last time. If you want to keep this article, you need to come up with an actual argument, which can only be a substantial coverage by reliable sources about the term.

Please avoid following arguments from the last nomination, because none of them prevent the article from being a neologism: "The nominatior is POV" - Can not be evaluated, "The term is notable" - It is an AfD because of neologism, not notability, "The term is frequently used" - That fits neologisms, "Reliable sources have been removed" - No they have not. The original version contains no additional reliable sources.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) ""Nominators don't determine how votes are weighted. Closing admins do." -- King Öomie 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)"
 * Keep re WP:SNOW Wiki libs (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How's this for an actual argument?


 * I didn't ever indicate that nominators determine how votes are weighted. I explained how to keep an article.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  07:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Obvious and blatant Keep- This isn't some "genre" that one band claims to have created, and then went to wiki to try to create an article to give their band some publicity. This is a well known and defined genre with numerous well known and notable bands, like Pantera and Machine Head. Sources exist for it as well, as has been proven in the previous afds. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – I haven't seen any original research or synthesis removed from the article, therefore it stands on its own feet as a stub. Was thrash metal a neologism before it was widely written about rather than used? And, by the way, I think you'd have trouble arguing your case at DRV if an admin, by chance, manages to decide to keep this again, and you don't agree because it wasn't on your terms. – B.hotep •talk• 21:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Why does this keep coming back? Not a single editor agreed with the last proposal to delete. Article is short but I don't see any reason to delete. Also, I object to being advised as to what arguments I can't use in my support or opposition. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. agree with them.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to all above. Well, its nice that you guys want to keep this, even argumenting with WP:BALL, which is not a policy. In contrary to "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", which is a Wikipedia policy. Nothing you've said prevent "Groove metal" from violating that policy. You were given enough time since the last nomination to provide reliable sources, to expand the article and to prove your claims. But no one did anything. You can't keep an article entry based on snowball effect of article-supporting users without a single argument. The article still fits the deletion criteria per WP:NEO. You did't disprove my nomination. And you can count User:Rockgenre as a "delete" vote since he nominated last time.


 * In other words: "Groove metal" violates WP:NEO. Simple as that. Why do you think that you are entitled to ignore that Wikipedia policy?--  LYKANTROP    ✉  07:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the proposer last time, Rockgenre, changed his vote to a weak keep. By the end of the discussion, nobody wanted to delete it at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, allright. He changed his mind about the notability, that is right. Then just don't count Rockgenre. But that changes nothing here. The term is a neologism and is at this point unable to develop above a stub based on album reviews and articles that just mention it. The bands mentioned in the article seem to exist since early-/mid-1980. I wouldn't wait for music journalist to finally cover the topic with sources after 20+ years. Fusing it into thrash metal and giving it a secton there would be more than enough for the sources that it has.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  20:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, so why on earth did you initiate an AfD? Have you seen WP:MERGE? And the precursor to that should have been alternatives to deletion. If you are going to accuse others of ignoring policy, you should at least have read that one and then the guideline on initiating a merge discussion. Such judgement makes me wonder if you have a real handle on what a neologism is. – B.hotep •talk• 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment- I've flip-flopped on this article on several occasions, but truth be told, Lykantrop is right that "groove metal" really is a neologism. This article will never get any bigger unless no one pays attention to it and IPs write whatever nonsense they want. The Washington Post is really one of the only references which really talks about it and the definition they give doesn't really make sense considering groups that fans apply it too like Pantera hardly had any hip hop or dance influences. I doubt that anyone can actually find a legit source that says, "Groove metal was popular between...It's music mixes....It declined when..." Regardless, this article won't get deleted because fans care about this term too much. RG (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan. Notice I didn't vote last time, merely commented. I recognise it as a valid sub-genre. The neologism stance is trying to worm around the issue. What I am now saying is why wasn't this pursued in the proper manner? It seems like a very bad faith nomination to me. – B.hotep •talk• 23:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not a fan either. The idea that the article won't get any longer is not a reason to delete, by the way, obviously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This was pursued properly. Lykantrop put the article up for deletion like I previously did because no one could find many sources about the subject. I've found numerous sources from mostly independent newspapers, about.com, etc. using the words "groove metal", but other than the Washington Post, what can we find giving this term a definition or a history? A two sentence article is kind of useless. RG (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So now you don't understand the proper process for AfD. Have a look here at #4 – Before nominating an article for deletion – "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD" – there has been no merger discussion, contested or otherwise (according to the talk page). Such attempts at bypassing the system (you think the merge will be contested, so you bring it here) is called gaming the system. – B.hotep •talk• 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I think the point that was being made was that if merging it with thrash metal would be satisfactory, what is this AfD all about? It suggests that no alternatives to deletion were considered, even though this article has been up for deletion twice before and never came close to being deleted. It's a poor effort, at best. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with merging this article with thrash would be that no sources claim the two have any connection. The Washington Post calls it hard rock that mixes hip hop and dance music, nothing about thrash. There's really nothing that would be an appropiate article to merge it with here. RG (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is your take on the matter (and seemingly the nominator's). Not proper process to bring it here. Also, article marked clearly as a stub. See Wikipedia:Stub, "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." – emphasis added. The clues are all there. – B.hotep •talk• 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That last bit not true, I thought it was a stub. Because of the varying size of the article over the months, it was marked as start, should now be stub. – B.hotep •talk• 23:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) For the record, I've now changed it to stub. – B.hotep •talk• 23:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

B.hotep, you just try to water this nomination down to make it seem ambiguous, but sorry, that's just twaddling around. The article fails WP:NEO so I nominated it for deletion. I know the article for a long time (my first edit December 2007 link), and I wanted to keep it in the first nomination (February 2008), but since then (and since long time before it), the article showed zero progress. And as I said, after RG removed purely non-reliable sources (webzines, random fan sites, etc.) and original research from the original version, there is basically nothing left. Since then it is tagged as an article that has problems and none of the editors touched it (what is considerable with 40+ watchers and several hundreds of readers/day). The article also has no potential to grow; the bands were around since 1980s and there are still no proper sources for it, and I see no chance for the sources to come. And those little sources that are there, don't even make sense together. I am not proposing to merege this with thrash metal. I just said that you can use this minimum of sources that it has for thrash metal (if possible, what RG doubts). But this article entry, no matter what future it has, is a neologism that shows itself as a perfect candidate for deletion.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  08:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly it's at university, and I'm not right now, but Gary Sharpe-Young (a very well respected writer) has an entire section in his book all about neo-metal/groove metal bands in "Metal: The Definitive Guide". I would say delete, but make part of WP Project Metal's list of tasks to write about this either in the crossover thrash or thrash pages with a view to expanding that segment once sufficient content is found. Until then add a re-direct link to there. It's an offshoot genre, once we can prove it was an established sound then it deserves a segment of it's own. I do not think however, many people know many bands that qualify other than Machine Head and Pantera. Plenty of noteworth bands do, but work must be done within the confines of an article about one of the originator genres first. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC))
 * That is definitely positive, and I agree.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  00:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No replies = everyone content with the deletion? Any questions?--  LYKANTROP    ✉  12:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a keep, keep, keep, keep so far... in case you lost count. Wiki libs (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Content with the deletion"? What are you suggesting here? My vote was keep, in case you think you've changed my mind somehow, and the only delete vote is the proposer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You both examplary fail to comprehend some of Wikipedia's basic rules: duscussion or a deletion process. What am I suggesting here? WP:AFDEQ: "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself."
 * You are polling and think that that's enough. I am saying "Groove metal" violates WP:NEO. You fail to disprove me = You fail to prevent the page from deletion. And now I'm asking whether you're content with this result, not whether you want to poll a second time without any argument.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "examplary" means, unless it's a neologism that I don't know about. It's amusing that you think others have failed to understand anything when your whole argument hangs on something that you don't understand. Groove metal is not a neologism. Neologism = "new word" - a neologism is a newly invented word, usually cobbled together from other words. "Groove metal" may be a novel term, but it is not a neologism. If it were, then all music genres would be neologisms when first used, and that's patently not the case. Your neologism idea is a non sequitur, so no, the article should not be deleted on that basis. WP:NEO is not applicable here. Doesn't it strike you as odd that you are the only person with this point of view? You think that just because you've waffled on about your neologism stance, that it qualifies as THE argument, and therefore your point of view will prevail. Bretonbanquet (talk)
 * I don't understand why do you tell me "Neologism = "new word", usually cobbled together from other words." It is not up to editors to make definitions of what neologism is and what is not. Why do you say "WP:NEO is not applicable here." It is not up to editors to decide which policy is applicable. You don't need to waste your time making your personal rules. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia but it is not an anarchy. All rules are applicable on all articles. "Groove metal" is not an exception. It relies on 2 poor sources. It doesn't put together even the most basic information about the genre. WP:NEO says: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." I mean, look at the article. It's 2 sentences and 2 sources. This is not "books and papers about the term or concept". It's loud and clear.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't "made up" the definition of "neologism" - that's what the word means, sorry about that. "It is not up to editors to decide which policy is applicable" So what have you been doing throughout this discussion??? You decide a rule is applicable, yet another editor's opinion that it doesn't apply is somehow invalid? This discussion is going nowhere because you seem to think you have the monopoly on applying and interpreting wiki guidelines. I don't accept your application of WP:NEO because groove metal is not a neologism. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable neologism used in a variety of reliable sources. Article needs improvement, but that is not grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Article needs improvement"? Exactly. Of course it does. That is why this why I created this page. But everyone failed and fails to accomplish that task for couple of years due to permanently insufficient sources. That means it violates WP:NEO, and is up to deletion.
 * WP:NEO:
 * "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."--  LYKANTROP    ✉  16:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I still say it's not a neologism. I've been looking up examples of neologisms, and this doesn't fit the bill. From our own article: laser, robotics, genocide, agitprop; grok, cyberspace, nymphet; Catch-22, Orwellian, sadistic, quixotic, monomyth, quark. Neither is it a portmanteau – that would be something like grovtal. Similar cross-genre terms within heavy metal are nu metal, alternative metal, rap metal – do you class these as neologisms? The writing of "new" as "nu" certainly is. I think you're on the wrong track. – B.hotep •talk• 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the crux of it. Groove metal is not a neologism, and apparently there is no other popular basis on which to delete this article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't need to look up anything. Other words have zero relevance here. I don't remember WP:NEO saying anything about one term fitting the other. Why do you ask me what I classify nu metal, alt metal and rap metal? Again, anything else than groove metal has simply zero relevance here. Why do you keep twaddling around about other things? This is about "groove metal". Not the other articles. Please stay focused on the topic.
 * And by the way, no I don't classify them as neologisms. The articles do not fail to "cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." "Goove metal" (2 sentences, 2 sources and an almost empty infobox) obviously does fail this, therefore, fails the policy.

The problem of this article is lack of "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." You can observe it yourself. You just need to click on this link: "Groove metal" and count. This is not ambiguous. This is a simple fact. 100% transparent. How many more times do you want me to repeat this again?--  LYKANTROP    ✉  07:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Repeat it as many times as you like before realising that some people simply don't agree with you. It's clear that you think we're stupid or misguided because we don't accept your point of view, and it's becoming a little offensive. I suggest we leave the discussion here, because we're just repeating ourselves with no prospect of agreement. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument is, and has been, that it is a neologism. I think it is germane that I mention other sub-genres/precedents in my argument that it isn't. Two sources is fine for a stub article and there is no actual time limit to completing the article. Those are facts. I have answered your questions, and I, too, am growing weary of repeating myself, so consider this my definitive argument. – B.hotep •talk• 13:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: how old can a neologism be before it's no longer "neo"? Is it greater than or less than two decades? -- King Öomie  18:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some sources state one generation, or approximately 15–20 years. – B.hotep •talk• 19:17, 10 June 2010 (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.