Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagan metal (2nd 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 consensus to delete, the issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Pagan metal
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No opinion here, just creating page for the anonymous user that nominated it. ... disco spinster   talk  15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the anon's rationale posted on the article's talk page: "apparently I can't create the deletion discussion, so here's the reasoning: not enough sourcing, the odd mention of the phrase "pagan metal" here or there doesn't mean anything there needs to be a selection of sources describing a GENRE in detail not just using a phrase. supposed "genre" not supported enough to justify article and it's mostly just original research obviously just something a user made up. users talking all about the genre and so on doesn't add up to anything because it's all original research." Olaf Davis (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for setting this up for my, guys. as I say above, there's no need for the page because it's 90% origial user research and 10% the odd mention of the phrase "pagan metal" (which isn't the same as a genre called "pagan metal") here and there. that's not even enough to justify a section of another page, let alone a whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.192.189 (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Should anon IPs have AfD's listed on their behalf? Is it so difficult to register an account? IMO this should be closed now, but a more solid KEEP argument is that AfD is not for cleanup. So what if it's unref'd?  That's not justification in itself to delete. Tag it for refs instead of bringing it here.  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's completely up to him as to whether he registers an account or not. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but steps II and III for listing an AfD states that the user must be logged in. Once again, it's one rule for one and one rule for everyone else... ;-)  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, if you look at the deletion templete, it says "if you're not registered, lay out your reasons in the talk page and wait for someone else to set it up for you", so nothing wrong there. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * as for the article itself: "so what if it's unref'd?" - it's not about it being "unrefed", it's about the fact that the whole damn article is something someone made up and doesn't have any good sources behind it. there's a difference between something not having enough references and not having any basis at all. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep My search for "pagan metal" and "pagan metal music" came up with this, many of the bands listed here are in that list as well. Could be a legitimate spin-off of the folk/ viking metal genre, but references need a lot of improvement. If nothing can be found, perhaps merging what can be sourced with Folk metal is appropriate. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * metal archives isn't a good source here, it counts for nothing. so there still isn't any solid sourcing for it. merge would suit me just fine, there just doesn't need to be an article on "pagan metal" since there's no such genre. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep--I was ready to go all-out on delete, but to my surprise there are some references, though not many of the "reliable" ones (what's reliable in metal besides Kerrang? and they're not online...) are in English. There are a couple of mentions in German newspapers, and if you cull the "all dates" search in Google News there are a few more somewhat reliable mentions. I do not accept the authority of Metal Archives alone, but together with the references I found in Google News I am swayed toward keep. Oh, the article is full of OR, but it's really not that bad--it just needs User:Blackmetalbaz to come by and fix it--if he believes the subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * still not enough. remember that it's not enough to simply find a handful of mentions of the term "pagan metal". you need a good few sources describing the genre in depth. i don't see anything actually talking about the genre, just using it as a term. when do we need a new artlce? when there's enough info (sourced that is) to need a separate page. which "pagan metal" doesn't have. there's no need for a page to itself, because there aren't enough sources actually describing the "genre" and how it's distinct from existing forms. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, please sign your name so I know who I'm talking to. And you don't have to remind me what WP:GNG says since I have it tattooed on my arm. If you read German, and you had followed my link, you would have quickly found two articles that discuss pagan metal at length. I have since incorporated them into the article; I believe some measure of notability has been established. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * all sigged now, same guy, different comp. please tell me you're just making a bad joke about the tattoo, or else i've found an all-time new low of sadness...
 * well, i don't read German, nor do i think i can be blamed for that, but i'll take your word on those. however, take another look at it now i've removed everything without a source. not much to this "genre" is there? and what is there? common neo-nazi/pagan views (black metal) and clean vocals. so basically the only thing from a source that makes it different to just another form of black metal is the clean vocals? that's not even close to enough for an article. plus, this is making the assumption that the sources do support the citations AND aren't just using it as a term rather than a genre. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You removed this: "Pagan metal (as distinct from black metal) romanticizes blood, ancestry, and nature, especially in relation to Germanic peoples, though in Eastern Europe, for instance, there are bands influenced by Slavic mythology. This ideology is apparent in outward appearance also--eschewing corpse paint, pagan metal chooses historical costume. The German band Menhir, for instance, dresses in Merovingian costume. Paganism and nationalism unite in pagan metal; according to Heiko, Menhir's lead singer, "only the combination of the mythological with nature and country is the ultimate achievement."" That was sourced content, and I am restoring it. As for those bands you've removed, I looked at one or two and they are listed in their articles as playing this style, so they'll be back--I don't believe there's a requirement that there's a reference for every single one. I added a couple of references because Danzig is unexpected but verified in the Washington Post, and a few more to show you that there are sources. If you can't read German you should be very careful with removing content based on German sources. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry if i removed something that was sourced, without a citation on the end it wasn't clear, and since the source itself is foreign language i can't check myself. so i wasn't knowingly removing sourced content, it just wasn't clear that all that was sourced. all bands would require a source, otherwise any genre added to them is unsourced content, and can be removed. if it's not sourced, it's no different to me adding "brutal death metal" into black sabbath. so the actual band list seems pretty low too.
 * sure, there are a few more sources now, but there still isn't much discussing the genre in detail, which is the important bit. what does the article currently really say? it has elements of black and folk metal: well this means nothing, as a lot of folk metal already has elements of black metal (finntroll, ensiferum, equilibrium, the list goes on). and that it has lyrics focusing on pagan themes. so basically the only thing that identifies this "genre" is it has pagan lyrics and sounds like folk metal or black metal. so...basically just black or folk metal? there's nothing here to really identify "pagan metal" from folk metal with a pagan theme. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What identifies it as a distinct genre is its description as such in sources. If reliable sources talk about it as if it were distinct we can report it as such, regardless of whether we think the distinction is a useful one or not. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * but the issue isn't whether there exists something that could be called "pagan metal", the issue is whether it justifies it's own article. and the fact is it doesn't, because all you can really say about it is "it's got pagan lyrics". at the very least the opening line should call it a "form" not a "genre", like the article on christian metal. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, verifiability, not truth. We have enough reliable sources in this article that talk about pagan metal as a genre, and that's what matters on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that's not answering my point. yes, there are sources to talk about pagan metal, but is there enough CONTENT to justify an article? we could have an article on every single little variation of heavy metal music. but we don't, we combine ones that only have a handful of minor sources. 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep While fairly new, it does have some recognition as a a distinct entity:,.
 * Dear unsigned, that first entry would be very helpful but it seems to be an essay someone published themselves on a site which does not have editorial oversight, and thus it carries no authority--it's not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a fan of all the sub genres of "metal" like "12th century Serbian peasant metal" or "Tollund Man metal" etc but this is an adequate article. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But Dr. Blofeld! 12th c. Serbian peasant metal is the way to go! It is the only real authentic kind of metal there is! Drmies (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

oh and another issue: can anyone outline the validity of some of the sources? first one, for example, what makes netzeitung a reliable source? the third one too: why is the culture section writer of "freitag" an authority on heavy metal subgenres? numbers 5, 7, 8 and 10 also all need explanation as to why they're good sources. remember that a source needs to be authoritative on the subject at hand to be used. i'm not saying they can't, i'd just be happier knowing what makes these reliable. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can tell you Netzeitung are a tolerably reliable source. They aren't the BBC or the London Times, but the German Wikipedia cites them and it never seems to create a sourcing issue on their talk pages. Keep.  This is better sourced than most metal-related articles on Wikipedia.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Netzeitung probably deserve an article, don't they? Drmies (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah...they do...how about that? Drmies (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, so that one looks fine. what about the rest? 83.218.158.202 (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe they fail WP:RS, please say on what grounds.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And please don't think something is not notable because it doesn't have a Wikipedia article. That doesn't work for bands and it doesn't work for newspapers and magazines. If everything on WP were automatically notable, we wouldn't have AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * never said they weren't notable because they didn't have articles. never said they weren't reliable either. in fact, i made it very clear from the off that i WASN'T outright doubting them, just asking for some clarification on why they can be considered authoritative on this subject. which you still haven't provided. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you said it looked fine right after I wrote the article on Netzeitung, and your comment was below mine. I'm not going to explain for every individual publication why I think they are more or less reliable. You, perhaps, should answer S Marshall's valid question. After all, you seem to be the only one who doubts a majority of these sources and what they say (see your comment below). I don't feel that every individual "style" of music deserves its own article, but this one is here, and it's well-sourced, and it's supported by a great majority in this AfD, some of whom, I might add, are well-seasoned, with Bacon salt or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Question I can't read German. Does any of the sources identify pagan metal as a distinct genre from folk metal? This review from Allmusic explicitly identifies the two things as being the same: Pagan or folk-metal, in which pummeling drums and roaring guitars match up with keening flutes and acoustic instruments from various folk cultures, has become one of the fastest-growing subgenres in metal. Emphasis mine. This issue of Revolver identifies Skyclad as the pioneers of pagan metal at p. 44. Etc. The passing mention of Danzig as pagan metal by Washington Post is just that: a passing mention with no elaboration of what pagan metal is supposed to be in that context. I note that the same source describes Danzig's former band as "pagan-punk" too so it certainly seems to be nothing more than an exercise in neologism. Other sources mentioned in the article are for bands that are also known as folk metal: Eluveitie, Equilibrium, Obtest; while Black Messiah as a Viking metal act isn't far removed. Given that people do evidently use the terms folk metal and pagan metal interchangeably, are we simply creating two articles on the same subject? --Bardin (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The German sources do talk specifically about "pagan metal." The article from Freitag, for instance, talks about the folk elements in pagan metal, but never mentions "folk metal." The article in Netzeitung discusses pagan metal quite specifically, and doesn't mention the word "folk" or the term "folk metal." That Allmusic would equate them, sure--it remains a small distinction (compared to the difference between string quartet and orchestra, but apparently it is one with a difference, esp. in the European sources. As for Danzig, that's a different matter and, as I mentioned on the talk page (I think that's where it is...), should probably be addressed with a sentence or two. Maybe it should be taken out--but since the guy writing for the Post mentions the term in three different articles, it's not that easily discarded, in my opinion, and I am unwilling to do so at this time. Your questions are valid--and if you'll look above, you'll see that I was skeptical too, esp. given the state of the article earlier on. But these very valid German sources convince me, even though I feel silly writing a serious article on grown men who dress up in Merovingian costume to play deafening music. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the Freitag article talks about folk elements in pagan metal, then is it not reasonable to conclude that they are actually using the term pagan metal as a substitute for folk metal? People writing articles do not necessarily list out all the different terms by which something might be known as. There are articles about "melodic death metal" and there are articles about "that gothenburg sound" but we do not create different articles for the two because they obviously are the same thing. The review on Allmusic that I provided is quite clear about folk metal and pagan metal being the same thing; there's no distinction there whatsoever, not even a small one. Perhaps the German press simply prefers to use the term "pagan metal" to refer to that which the English press refers to as "folk metal". Would the meaning of these article actually change if we substitute the folk metal for every instance of pagan metal? Given that the bands identified as pagan metal are generally also folk or viking metal acts, is there any evidence from these German articles that they are actually referring to something distinct from folk metal? There is a reason, after all, why pagan metal was a redirect to folk metal before this article was re-created.
 * As for Danzig, the repeated usage of the same term by the same journalist across three articles does not alter the probability that the usage is nothing more than a neologism, given the entire absence of any explanation of what "pagan metal" or "pagan punk" is supposed to be, as well as the absence of any relationship being drawn up between Danzig and other so-called pagan metal acts. Neologisms are not uncommon in newspapers. Danzig has also been identified as a Satanic metal act too by several mainstream publications but we aren't going to create a wikipedia article on Satanic metal, are we? At least Danzig has been referred to as Satanic metal by several different publications while the pagan metal term has only been used by one journalist in the same publication. Danzig has also been identified as gothic metal, death metal, doom metal, industrial metal, extreme metal, dark metal, etc. There certainly does not appear to be any sort of consensus as to what sort of music Danzig performs so one lonely journalist describing Danzig as pagan metal is far from convincing here. --Bardin (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you Bardin, all quite right. there's nothing given to really distinguish "pagan metal" from folk or viking metal (both of which have strong ties to black metal and one another anyway). what this article would really seem to say is simply "some metal bands, mainly folk ones (which connects with black metal and viking metal) have pagan lyrics". and that's not a genre, nor do we need an article to say that. what would be wrong with simply have a small sub-section of the folk metal article mentioning how some journalists use the term "pagan metal", describing those folk metal bands with explictly pagan lyrical themes? in other words, as i've repeatedly said: why do we need this article? why do we need an article on every single little "-metal" term the media uses? 86.138.90.54 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The folk metal article already does mention that some bands prefer to be known as pagan metal instead of folk metal. With the review from Allmusic, I can probably go further than that and starts the article with "folk metal or pagan metal", though I think I'd rather wait for this AFD to be resolved first. --Bardin (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Not my style of music, but the article seems well written, and plenty of references.  Many are in German (and Swiss-German), but Google Translation makes a reasonable job, so one can verify the references are appropiate.  Ron h jones (Talk) 18:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * bardin's point is a large part of what i'm saying: i'm not doubting there are some sources that use the term pagan metal. but the point i've been trying to make is: why does this need it's own article? so far all this article really says is "there are some metal bands that have pagan (sometimes neo-nazi) lyrics, usually folk, viking or black metal". there aren't any other distinct musical characteristics to this "genre", so why is there a need for an article? why not simply note in the folk/viking/black metal pages that there are distinct pagan forms? just like, for example, how we don't have a seperate article for every "progressive metal" form out there. why does this NEED it's own article? 86.138.90.54 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No Wikipedia article is necessary. Jimbo Wales doesn't need his own article when he could be merged to List of notable Wikipedians.  Barack Obama doesn't need his own article when he could be merged to List of US presidents.  Dinosaur doesn't need its own article when it could be merged to List of extinct creatures. The question for us to decide isn't whether the article is necessary, but whether it meets core policies (the usual ones at AfD are WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:V and WP:RS) and important guidelines (at AfD, WP:N is often cited). This does.  QED.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * i feel you're missing my point. ask the question: why DOES Obama have his own article? because there's too much information on him to contain within the list of presidents. if we included all that info there, the page would just be unmanagable. yes, the basic term "pagan metal" meets the criteria for noting, because it gets mentioned in sources. but the question is does it meet the criteria for having it's own article, i.e. being distinct from existing genres, or having sufficiently detailed info within said sources to justify separating it out from other things. something like, say, thrash metal has a lot of sources that talk about it as something distinct, and talk about it in a lot of detail, so it needs it's own article. something like canadian thrash metal doesn't need an article because there wouldn't be much content. as is the case here. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The following is a later reply, but inserted here since I am directly addressing 86.138.90.54's last remark. Well, we don't merge or redirect an article just because it's short. Wikipedia has stubs for a reason. We might merge an article if it was short and it could never be expanded.  But in this case, I think that encyclopaedic content could be added. What distinguishes pagan metal from other forms are certain lyrical themes and theatrical motifs concerned with these bands' (perhaps rather inaccurate) conception of what it means to be pagan, and I think there could be room to expand the article on this basis. I'm totally uninterested in writing such an article myself, but I think the key point is that someone could write a longer article out of this.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, leave dinosaur out of it. My daughter just got a dinosaur, and if I tell her it's to be merged there'll be hell to pay. Besides that, S Marshall is right, of course. I may add that while Bardin's comments in general may be valid, they are predicated on the interchangeability in the references cited in the articles of folk and pagan metal, and I don't believe that they are discussed, even used, in those articles as synonyms. Bardin, you said, "is it not reasonable to conclude that they [the Freitag article] are actually using the term pagan metal as a substitute for folk metal?" I say no--I will give them that much credit, given the sophistication and knowledge displayed in the article. Since you don't read German, you can take my word for it or not, but that's how I read the article. Again, as a disclaimer, I came here ready to delete and I actually found that source and added it. I do note that the biggest nay-saying IP here does not read German, and I must doubt their capability of evaluating sources that are written in a language they can't read, and that IP has been deleting content referenced to German sources. Is that diplomatic enough? Now, dear S Marshall, stay away from this since you have bigger fish to fry--there's a Had had had had had had had had had had had article waiting to be merged somewhere! ;) Drmies (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have not quite understood my point. I'm not questioning the reliability, sophistication or knowledge of Freitag. I'm questioning your interpretation of their use of pagan metal as something distinct from folk metal. We have evidence that people uses the term pagan metal and folk metal to refer to the same thing. I have not seen evidence that these German articles use the term pagan metal as anything distinct from folk metal. All you're telling me here, drmies, is "trust me". I'm sorry but that's not good enough. Bear in mind that I have yet to actually voice my opinion as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. My mind is still open here. I've taken a look at each of those German articles with the help of google translation and I could not find anything that distinguishes pagan metal from folk metal. The wiki article does not help either: the bands play at the same festival, attract the same criticism of neo-nazi symbolism, use folk instruments and sing about mythology, history and paganism. Where's the distinction between pagan and folk metal here? I can list out the unique pieces of information in the pagan metal article that is not already in the folk metal article. 1. the uncited info about In The Woods being one of the first bands to be classied as pagan metal, which is unlikely given that Terrorizer and Allmusic both describes Skyclad as pagan metal and Skyclad predates In The Woods by half a decade; 2. the dubious mention of Danzig which I've already addressed above; 3. the vocals are mainly clean, which is a bit odd given that most of the bands on the article's list uses unclean vocals (In The Woods, Eluveitie, Arkona, Haggard, Trollfest, etc.) Some of them, like Trollfest, hardly uses anything else but unclean vocals. 4. the use of historical costumes, which unmentioned in the folk metal article, is not uncommon among folk metal bands too; 5. sharing a "völkisch" view of history associated with hatecore, a piece of information that is supported by an article about hatecore that only contains a trivial passing mention of pagan metal.
 * That's all the distinction that I could find between this pagan metal article and the folk metal article. However, I am aware that pagan metal is sometimes used to refer to some black metal bands that are not distinct from any other black metal bands other than their use of pagan lyrics instead of satanic lyrics. Such usage are common among online forums, for instance. I do not think that there are reliable sources to support an article about pagan black metal. Given that the list in this wiki article includes non-black metal acts like Eluveitie and Haggard, I do not think that's what you are trying to go for either. --Bardin (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  09:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Folk metal. My German isn't really good enough to comment very reliably on some of these sources, but from what I can tell from the discussion above none of those sources specifically distinguish "pagan metal" from "folk metal"; none use both terms in their articles and they may well be (and I feel probably are) using a synonymous term. The Washington Post comment about Danzig is really neither here nor there; it doesn't discuss the genre and you'd hardly expect a national newspaper to be a reliable source on niche heavy metal subgenres. The only source provided that does seem to mention both terms appears to be Allmusic, which explicitly states that they are the same thing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, Baz, I hadn't looked for a merge yet, in part because IP 86.etc had been running rampant calling for deletion and effectively deleting sourced content; their arguments don't impress me much. You and Bardin make a pretty decent argument in regarding to those sources, though I can't say I'm totally convinced. This one, for instance, does in fact distinguish them, and organized the bands into at least three genres which the author deems distinct enough. BTW, if a source like that, or the Post for that matter, are not reliable sources in niche genres, then we are putting the cart of WP:RS before the horse, since then we have to argue that a lot of the sites and zines that we don't deem to be reliable are in fact more knowledgeable than the "real" reliable sources. But that's best left for another time. Certainly a merger would clean up that list of bands, and if Danzig falls by the wayside, that's fine, I guess, though odd. In case of a merger, though, I would insist that someone knowledgeable work it in, not some random IP ; if it simply gets erased after merger that would be a sad thing. Bardin, you have done a lot of work on the folk metal, medieval metal, and celtic metal (speaking of esoteric genres, by the way!) articles and they look really good, well done--perhaps you could spend a little time on that. I know some of the Moonsorrow and Tyr stuff is in there, and I would like the SO36 criticism to find a place also, in some narrative detail. Most of all, I want the references in notes 1 and 3 to remain, since I think these are really interesting (and reliable) articles, and they're not mentioned in folk metal. I'm going to wait and see how this AfD turns out, since other editors have spoken out in favor of a keep, but if it turns out that a merger is decided on (and frankly, delete looks unlikely, despite the IP's best efforts to gut the article), then I'll be perfectly happy to help with for instance the German sources. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * please don't bad-mouth me behind my back, thank you. and don't talk down to/about me just because i'm an IP user. i'm not attempting to "gut" the article or anything of the sort. i just know an unnecessary article when i see one. baz and bardin are saying what i have been saying all along: that this article is unnecessary as it doesn't have sufficient different content. so also, please don't just dismiss my arguments because i'm an IP, and then immediately start acting all friendly when a user comes along. i've said from the off i'm happy with merge, because i simply don't see any need for this article, nor enough detailed info/sources to justify it. so, to reiterate: i'd appreciate it if you not dismiss or ignore my points simply because i'm an IP, not call me a vandal, and not undo my removal of unsourced content (which i have explained to you repeatedly on the talk page). 86.138.90.54 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

as Baz and Bardin say, there's not much to distinguish them. see groove metal and post-thrash for example: both are terms that get used in sources, but both redirect to the same article because there's not really much to distinguish the two. same here. 86.138.90.54 (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2009 (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.