Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heavy metal bands

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of heavy metal bands

[edit]
List of heavy metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Redundant and useless. This list is divided into two parts, the first being a list of bands from the "Original movement: 1967-1979" while the second part is just a list of links to other lists for the various subgenres of heavy metal music. The first part is practically synonymous in criteria with the list of bands provided at the traditional heavy metal article with the main difference being the arbitrary and unexplained limitation of bands from just 1967-1979. This "original movement" concept is pretty much original research. I am not aware of any reliable source that pinpoints those years as part of an original movement. Wikipedia's very own article on heavy metal music, a featured article, does not even use the term at all. The second part of the list is virtually useless as it simply directs the reader to other lists elsewhere on wikipedia. Bardin (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Sloane (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decent references. Can be used to keep the main article on heavy metal from becoming an example farm since all the good examples (especially of the original movement of heavy metal bands) are listed here. Wether B (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a never ending list. It's too broad in scope. It also includes bands that are questionable whether they are "heavy metal" WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reason this directory needs to exist; it could be handled with a category. tedder (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redlinks can't be contained within a category. Lugnuts (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a debate on the merits of lists vs categories. This list is not redundant because of categories but because of other lists. The list provided at traditional heavy metal covers the same ground as the first part of this article so any redlinks can also be listed there. The rest of the article is just a directory of links to other lists. --Bardin (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has citations that meet WP:RS. Opening section about original heavy metal bands is accurate but the table needs to be filled in more. Peter Fleet (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into a list of lists, the "Traditional movement" part should be its own separate list as one of the lists by genre. Its better than the plain list in the main article because of the notes. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wether B. Everyone knows Led Zeppelin was the first heavy metal band. But more obscure bands from the beginning years of heavy metal are not notable enough for mention in the main page about heavy metal but can be documented properly on this list. The opening section is the best part of the article and needs to be fleshed out and expanded to look like the List of thrash metal bands. The list on the Traditional heavy metal page is not really needed and any entry that falls into the original movement era should be merged into the List of heavy metal bands. Fair Deal (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Interestingly Ian Christie is used extensively as a reference for this list yet when it came to Led Zeppelin some other source was used instead. Christie doesn't regard Led Zeppelin as heavy metal. So if people here believe he is wrong on Led Zeppelin, a question mark remains over the use of his book on other bands as a reference. JamesBurns (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are enough reliable sources which consider Led Zeppelin to be heavy metal that we can discount Christie for this fact alone; it doesn't mean we have to reject Christie entirely as a reliable source. Here in fact is a source which documents a controversy about whether Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath should be considered the "founder" of heavy metal, and it seems to be something which depends highly on what side of the Pond the writer lives. DHowell (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are other editors besides Christie which don't list Led Zeppelin as heavy metal. In order for the this to be WP:NPOV there should be a note attached to that entry listing the alternate point of view. You can't selectively cherry-pick a source to prove one argument and then discard it when you don't agree with it on the other. If consensus is Christie is wrong on this but right on the others than his book should no longer be considered a reliable source. JamesBurns (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article/reference improvement comments above would be better suited on the article talk page and not here. This is not a debate over whether Led Zeppelin is heavy metal (they are BTW) it is an AfD. GripTheHusk (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean according to your uncited opinion they are.. We have an article here which cites its own mirror as evidence and we have an article heavy metal music which doesnt cite once anything next to Led Zeppelin on why they are heavy metal. Poor form. And this is totally in keeping with the AfD, not off topic. Poorly referenced articles that have insufficient independent 2nd & 3rd party sources (WP:RS) are WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INFO are grounds for deletion. JamesBurns (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address your earlier point (i.e. whether Christie is a reliable enough source to justify the existence of this list), we don't judge a source entirely unreliable even it gets some things "wrong". Do we reject The Chicago Tribune as a reliable source because it once reported "Dewey Defeats Truman"? And in matters which rely heavily on opinion and individual judgement, such as the exact definition of "heavy metal" and whether certain bands fall into that definition or not, we certainly don't reject reliable sources simply because they disagree with other reliable sources. We document the disagreement, and move on. And with a tiny bit of research, you can find other sources besides the BBC site or Wikipedia mirrors. Per deletion policy, we don't delete articles that can be properly sourced simply because they aren't currently. Also, does Christie specifically say that Led Zeppelin is not heavy metal, or does he simply neglect to categorize them as such? It makes a difference. DHowell (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sheesh, if you had spelled his name right, I would have immediately found out how completely and utterly wrong you are: Ian Christe does indeed consider Led Zeppelin to be heavy metal. DHowell (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not evidence. What you listed was a blurb written by Google, not what Christe had actually written in the book. Christe states that heavy metal started with Black Sabbath, not Led Zeppelin. JamesBurns (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what a Google Book Search is? The material was written by Christe, not Google. You find the same content when you "search inside this book" at Amazon. "While Black Sabbath unleashed the substance of heavy metal, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple fleshed out the edges and gave it sex appeal." The issue for this list is not about who "started" heavy metal, but whether Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal band or not. This quote clearly supports that they are. DHowell (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And do you not understand that does not show the actual contents of the book. The blurb was written by Google, not by Christe, whom I might add has book start on Friday the 13th, February 1970, the release date of Black Sabbath. He does not regard Led Zeppelin as the originators of heavy metal, and does not discuss at any great lengths their music. There is no chapter devoted to Led Zeppelin. JamesBurns (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about? Does this link show something different for you than it does for me? I see page 12 of the book, with a picture of Ritchie Blackmore on the left and starting with the words "...frenzied blues trio formed by Eric Clapton in 1966." If Google Books isn't working for you, try the Amazon link, or go to a freakin' library or bookstore! And the index gives 15 pages for "Led Zeppelin" in this book. Who cares whether there is a "chapter devoted to Led Zeppelin"? There isn't a chapter devoted to Black Sabbath, either. DHowell (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need the library or bookstore as I have a copy sitting in front of me, along with other music books behind me which question Led Zeppelin as a heavy metal band, eg. David Konow's Bang Your Head: The Rise and Fall of Heavy Metal, and Garry Sharpe-Young Metal: The Definitive Guide. JamesBurns (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you telling me that page 12 of Sound of the Beast is not what both Google and Amazon have scanned into their respective databases? Perhaps you have a different edition of the book that has different page numbers? Is there a "Led Zeppelin" entry in the index? Can you honestly not find the quote above? DHowell (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good list, good refs, good companion piece for the main heavy metal article. Open section detailing original heavy metal bands is a good start but needs some minor formatting tweaks and more content. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments that a category is better than a list should be discounted per WP:CLN; the remaining arguments to delete are that it is redundant to other lists or consists of original research, which can be solved by editing or merging, rather than by deletion. But I don't think a merge is warranted here; this is a good combination article of a list of early influential bands in the genre and a list of sub-lists for the later and more numerous bands in various sub-genres. This is pretty much exactly the type of information I would expect to see in a "List of heavy metal bands" article. Whether it is called "original movement" or something else, the well-sourced heavy metal music article seems to support the idea of an "early movement" of heavy metal bands in the 1960s and early-to-mid 1970s, before the genre started to be influenced by punk and newer styles of rock, and before heavy metal truly entered the mainstream and started spawning off its own sub-genres; it seems that the formation of Motörhead in 1975 is a defining moment here. I think the split into separate tables for each letter of the alphabet is unnecessary; the list isn't so long that it needs to split this way, and in fact might be better sorted chronlogically rather than alphabetically. Another thing that appears to make this different than the list in traditional heavy metal is that the list in that article seems to include newer bands which play in the style of traditional heavy metal, as opposed to the first half of this list which is limited to bands which were influential in the formation of the genre. DHowell (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons already stated on this page. GripTheHusk (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nominator. This would be better handled as a category. The use of a mirror as a reference is cause for concern. HelenWatt (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list can easily be expanded Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep list is good and can be improved simply by filling in the missing table fields for each entry. First section has good references and the other sub-genre link sections serve a purpose without duplicating content from other pages. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_heavy_metal_bands&oldid=1079794735"