Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red and Anarchist black metal


 * 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. 3family6 is the lone dissenter, and has made a fair argument that Popmatters did publish an article that describes RABM. However, it is not a term that seems to enjoy widespread usage, and a single source is thin to justify an article that is supposed to be about an entire genre. The consensus is clearly in favor of deletion, and I am cl and I am closing this accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Red and Anarchist black metal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Rejected PROD. Essentially fails WP:MUSIC. Google searches reveal a near total dearth of coverage for a supposed genre that is sufficiently obscure that it fails even our pretty generous notability criteria for genre. To deal with sources that can be found - two were provided in the article from Blogspot and Livejournal; these blogs clearly fail WP:RS by a country mile. Google Books reveals [this https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5zI5CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA250&dq=%22red+and+anarchist+black+metal%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22red%20and%20anarchist%20black%20metal%22&f=false], which initially looked promising, but a swift check shows that the book is published through lulu.com, a self-publishing site (which hence fails WP:SPS). There is a brief mention of the microgenre on Examiner.com (site is blacklisted, so you'll have to Google News yourself; full quote: "Many of these bands openly identify with Communism; a good place to read up on them is Red and Anarchist Black Metal." - link to the blogspot); this is clearly passing mention and not enough to pass WP:N. And that's it. There's an article on Metal Underground, but that's a webzine that fails RS, there's the usual Last.fm and Facebook stuff, but no significant coverage in anything we can actually use as a source. NB. Absolutely no prejudice to re-creation should sources be found, but as far as I can tell they don't currently exist. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete my searches came up with very little, agree with User:Blackmetalbaz's findings. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I found a substantial write-up on PopMatters. I also managed to find a passing mention to short discussion of "anarchist black metal" on Noisey. The PopMatters write-up suggests to me that there may be additional coverage that my G-hits search did not find. I also found this French language source, but looking at the cover I'm guessing that it's a fascist manifesto of some kind, so that would be entirely unacceptable. The Subgenres of the Beast source that Blackmetalbaz mentioned above is not just self-published, but self-published content taken from Wikipedia! I'm going with weak keep though because of the substantial PopMatters write-up.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, if no other sources can be found, this article can be merged into a subsection on the black metal article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading through the Noisey article, the mention there of anarchist black metal is more significant than I thought. Though the article deals primarily with the bands, it does provide examples of the lyrical and sonic aspects of the genre. I also found a brief mention of the red/anarchist scene in this academic article from the French Wikipedia version of the Red and Anarchist black metal article, and another brief mention in this Lords of Metal review. I'm leaning more decidedly toward keep now, though the support is still tenuous.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you so much to User:3family6 for sources provided. If I could just comment on what you have found. I've never used PopMatters as a source before, but if it passes WP:RS that looks like a good source that specifically talks about the genre of RABM. Of the others, Noisey doesn't explicitly mention it as a genre term, nor does the academic article, and to use those as sources would be WP:OR. Lords of Metals fails WP:RS (it's an ezine, and either way the review states the reviewer has never heard of the genre!). regarding the "academic article", I also have some questions over its reliability - any "academic" that cites their gmail address as their point of contact is likely not associated with an academic institution for this work! If the solitary PopMatters source is considered enough by admins, perfectly prepared to withdraw nom and try and incorporate some of that material. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the other references are brief. I'm not sure what your point is about Noisey: What is the difference between a "scene" and a "genre?" And does calling the music part of a scene somehow make it not notable? If nothing else, the article could call RABM a "genre or scene of black metal." So that particular mention I would consider significant. As to the academic article, it is a conference paper from the seventh session of Inter-Disciplinary's 2008 "Heavy Metal Fundamentalisms" conference. The paper was submitted for presentation, and thus had to be reviewed and approved by the conference. Now, it still is a passing mention, I agree, and not that significant. All I'm showing above is that the source is reliable.
 * Lastly, what makes an e-zine unreliable by default? Lords of Metal has an editorial staff, and, as webzines go, is of particular high quality, with a scheduled issue format and all. Within the Netherlands, it's more popular than Metal Storm (which is considered reliable) is within the US (I found this info through Alexa). It's hard to find English-language sources mentioning LOM (in order to help determine it's reputation as reliable), but I did find this mention of an interview in an Exclaim! article. There's also a re-printing of an interview in Metal Hammer Germany. Now, both of those mentions are of an interview the site conducted, and an interview might be mentioned even if it was on someone's private blog. However, this Portuguese news site mentions LOM alongside publications like Rock Hard and Terrorizer. And this site for a Dutch newspaper mentions a journalist who received his training while at LOM. And there's probably more that I couldn't find. So I think it's safe to say that LOM is reliable. However, you do make a point to which I agree - the reviewer hasn't heard of RABM before. I think all that this source would do is establish the reviewed band as part of that scene, and not much else.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 14:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re WP:RS. Inclusion of webzines (or other websites) relies on their content being published independently by a third-party source - not their internal "editorial team". So, I'm unconvinced Metal Storm or Lords of Metal pass that criterion - although if WP reliability criteria have changed in recent times, please point me toward the relevant change in policy. References to other magazines mentioning these webzines certainly doesn't establish WP:RS (I'm sure I could find refs in Terrorizer' or whatever to the user-edited Metal Archives). Alexa ratings have never had any credibility on WP. Regarding academic conferences - papers, or abstracts at conferences, are not peer-reviewed, and an absence of a link to an academic institution is pretty indicative that it is not being written as a legitimate academic source. I remain on board with the idea that something could possibly be made from the PopMatters source if one source is adequate, but the rest is either passing mention or WP:OR. Re: difference between a genre and a scene... I agree that's problematic, and if that source were talking explicitly about the Red and Anarchist black metal scene, I'd take that on board - but it doesn't, suggesting that we *still* only have one (possibly) legitimate source that this is real/notable microgenre. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. PopMatters and Metal Storm are listed there as reliable sources. Thank you for the clarification about academic conferences. However, in this particular case, the proceedings were later published by the hosting organization, with the oversight of an editorial board. I found the link for the entire publication as released through Inter-Disciplinary Press in 2010 (why I didn't fetch that sooner I have no idea). My argument with the Alexa rankings was going along with the mentions in other sources and editorial oversight to demonstrate that a) the source is well-known and b) has a reputation within other sources, which, combined with the editorial oversight and high-quality of the publication is indicative of c) fact-checking and accuracy. This is typically how sources are demonstrated as reliable at the Albums Project and the reliable sources noticeboard. The assumption is that unless a source is notable (which is different from reliable), it can be hard to find concrete examples of other sources explicitly stating "x-source is reliable", so a combination of markers such as editorial oversight, independent publishers (from the individual authors or from the entire work), usage by other sources, popularity, and basic quality are used to see if a publication meets WP:RS. If you feel that this entire process used at WP:ALBUMS and WP:RSN is flawed, please bring that up.
 * All that said, I don't think we really are in disagreement about the mention in sources regarding this particular article. I'm just more hesitant to delete, considering that there is a reliable source supporting the content. As I suggested above, though, I'm also okay with the content being merged into the black metal article, with a designated sub-section (as there is for "war metal")/-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Will absolutely go and look at the relevant noticeboards (I've been away for a while, and things may have changed). Definitely one thing I immediately take exception to though is the proceedings of Inter-disciplinary.net publishing their own abstracts. That is absolutely not the way academia is published. I quite like the fact they've mentioned it was based in Oxford UK, but there is a curious lack of connection with the Uni. There are also a number of Doctors cited, although none actually cite their credentials (which is unusual for an academic source, particularly if the event is at Oxford Uni, which seems doubtful). There is sufficient doubtful scholarship (based on the way the sources are presented) for me to be sceptical, but if I'm am wrong I am as always perfectly prepared to back down and endorse the source (even if it doesn't really support this specific article). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the record, whilst PopMatters is currently listed on the reliable list, Metal Storm (webzine) is currently listed as "don't use", per you link. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Metal Storm is both on the use and do not use lists. User reviews are of course not considered reliable, and staff reviews prior to 2009 are not accepted either.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think Inter-Disciplinary is through Oxford Uni, though they probably have contributors from there. I did a bit of research myself, now that you brought this up, and it appears to be a respectable scholarly organization. Niall Scott, a significant academic from UCLan, seems to be one of the main coordinators. I do see your concern about publishing their own proceedings.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Further note: Regardless of the questionable academic publishing process involved later on, the 2008 conference seems to have been one of the key points in the development of metal studies into a concrete discipline.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Above, I dismissed this source as possibly fascist, but now not I'm sure at all, as I've now seen other publications by "Camion Noir". However, this could still be vanity press or something. It would be good if an editor with a knowledge of French could comment on this source.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Also, I never mentioned it, and Blackmetalbaz didn't get into why the site is blacklisted, but Examiner.com is certainly not reliable - it has a reputation for plagiarism and low standards as it doesn't edit the content of it's contributors.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - our precedents show that most new genres of music are deleted, and I don't see why this would not be as well. Ping me if you need the pile of precedents. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OUTCOME is just an essay though. Just because other new genre articles are deleted doesn't necessarily mean that this one should be. Now, just on the merits of this topic alone, the sources supporting it are scant, and it might not deserve a full article. But why should it be deleted as opposed to being merged into a sub-section?-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best as I was going to suggest simply Drafting but the listed sourcing is simply not enough thus Delete instead. Simply not enough to suggest at least better improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  07:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found another source that briefly talks about the genre.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 14:22, 6 May 2016 (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.