Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viking 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   keep. Shereth 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Viking metal
This page contains a grand total of three sources, one which does not work, another is not in english and as far as I can tell, states nothing on the subject of the article. Finally, the last source is a fansite which cannot be defined as reliable. And this to the fact that a majority of bands in the list of bands are also folk metal bands, I suggest that page be deleted and merged into the folk metal article.I am also nominating the following related page:
 * Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my nomination, in light of the fact that the article has had alot of work done on it. I fully support to Keep this article.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect I'd considered merging it with a more general genre if any sources can be found. -- neon white talk 01:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is overlap of "Folk Metal" here, just as there is overlap of "Heavy metal music" here. This article's subject is sufficiently distinct to have a separate article, and this article is rated as a high-importance article under WikiProject Metal. A lack of reliable sources alone is not sufficient reason to delete if reliable sources can be found. At a minimum, I would ask for this deletion to be put on hold for a sufficient time to allow a serious cleanup effort. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep Lack of sources is not an acceptable reason for nominating an article for deletion. It is a reason to improve the article. The folk metal article originally featured zero sources until I came around and improved it to the high standard it has today. As the person who pretty much rewrote the folk metal article in its entirety, I can also state with certainty that Viking metal is not the same thing as folk metal and to merge the two article would be as ridiculous as merging heavy metal music with hard rock. Yes, there are many Viking metal bands that are also folk metal bands but there are also many that are not, including almost all the early pioneers of Viking metal like Bathory, Enslaved and Einherjer. Viking metal is a well-known and established subgenre of heavy metal music, one that is recognized by even mainstream sources like allmusic and in books like this and this. I've long had the intention of improving this Viking metal article but I've been busy elsewhere improving other articles. --Bardin (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability requires detailed second party sources, lack of these is a reason for deletion/merge. Not all sub-genres are notable unless they have significant coverage. Not every subject needs a seperate article. Sub genres with little available sources are better merged to a parent genre so they are present in some context that will help the reader. If you believe that this can be sourced i'd suggest marking it with a 'rescue' tag. -- neon white talk 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me explain this more clearly: articles on notable subjects that are missing sources should be improved and not deleted. The fact that you and some others might not appreciate the notability of this subject matter is a separate issue. If the article was on the political leader of some country, for example, you would not question the notability of the subject even though the article might not have any sources whatsoever like this one. No sources and no verifiability. Yet I do not think a nominating that article for deletion would succeed and I can imagine that the good people of Andorra would quite rightly feel rather pissed off if someone dare suggest that their first Prime Minister is not notable enough for an article on wikipedia. Would you tell them that their article should be deleted or merge to the main Andorra article because "notability requires detailed second party sources" and "lack of these is a reason for deletion/merge"? Moving to heavy metal music, there are plenty of other subgenres with articles that are as poorly sourced as this Viking Metal article was, including power metal, progressive metal, speed metal, nu metal, doom metal, symphonic metal and industrial metal. Should we wipe them all off and merge them with heavy metal music? After all, the reason for nomination above would be valid for each and every one of these articles as well as others like, say electronic dance music? The relevant criteria for deletion here as stated wikipedia's policy is "content not verifiable in a reliable source." That's verifiable not verified. In other words, the acceptable reason for deleting an article along this line of verifiability is where "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." That's the exact phrasing used at WP:DEL. What that means is if an article can be improved, it should be improved and not deleted. Verifiable not verified. Perhaps you think this is a mere neologism but a mere casual search on google would easily reveal that this is a widely recognized and established subgenre of heavy metal music, easily deserving of an article on wikipedia. I've already cited two books above that discusses the genre. Even the New York Times recognizes the existence of Viking metal. Let me stress once again that the folk metal article was originally devoid of a single source when I first came across it. Now, it has a Good Article status - something that would not have been possible if someone had came along before me and nominate it for deletion along the same line as this Afd. The gothic metal article was in as poor a condition as this Viking metal article was but just look at it now. I'm not capable of working on every single heavy metal subgenre article at the same time. That's what we need: time to work on this and other articles across wikipedia. Trigger happy nominations like this are a hindrance to our efforts. And for the record, Viking metal is not a subgenre of folk metal. --Bardin (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody can 'appreciate' the notability of a subject if the article does not assert any notability. The criteria for this article is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Some subjects have additional criteria this does not. The purpose of an afd is to allow time for sources to be found. The rescue tag is apecifically for this purpose. The odd mention now and again is not the basis for a good article and the sources so far only point towards it being a neologism rather than a defined genre. It sources that can contribute to the article without the use of original research. -- neon white talk 16:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:V... without reliable sources, we don't know if this is a NEO, or something someone made up, or what. Until we can demonstrate reliable sources that verify the details, I don't see how we can keep this.   Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Viking metal is regarded as a distinct style by numerous sources. With some time, I believe this article can be greatly improved. ___Superfopp (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - Merge with Folk Metal, musically a band like Tyr and later Bathory is not that much different from Eluveitie or In Extremo. Joe Capricorn (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Superfopp ≈  The Haunted Angel  19:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Strongly agree with Bardin: very distinct genre from Folk Metal, article needs and deserves time to improve. Duke56 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not even a real genre. Every "viking" metal band is either folk metal or black metal.  Thematic elements, such as lyrics about vikings or Norse mythology, have nothing to do with determining genres.  Having a page about a useless and fictitious genre is pointless.--71.210.179.110 (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC) — 71.210.179.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Tell that to Christian metal, Christian rock, Unblack metal, Christian hip hop, Gangsta rap, Dirty rap and Pornocore, Filk music, Queercore, etc. --Bardin (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (I'm briefly coming out of retirement for this) This is a notable genre with notable bands (Amon Amarth and Ensiferum comes to mind), and my Yahoo search returns nearly 3 million results for "viking metal." There is no excuse for deleting this. Also, you can't say it doesn't exist because I'm rocking to Ensiferum and they sure exist. MalwareSmarts (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hits on a search engine aren't criteria for notability and this is the perfect example why as the term is used in many different contexts. For example there's a company called 'Viking Metal Detectors', another company called 'Viking Metals' that manufacture guttering and another called 'Viking Metal Cabinet Company'  out of the total results, there are only a handful that are relevant and i can't find one that is verifiable. A search on Google Books comes up with metal work of the viking and one use of the phrase in a quotation. -- neon white talk 16:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

— 82.40.252.40 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep 82.40.252.40 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think merging the List of Viking metal bands into the main Viking metal article would help it a lot. Especially since all the bands are referenced and there aren't too many to deal with. ___Superfopp (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (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.