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 Merge into Folk metal. I've actually gone ahead and redirected the page to "Folk metal". Those wishing to merge the content can view it here. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental metal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oriental metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is the deletion proposal of the oriental metal page. Reasoning three-fold: lack of sources, lack of bands, lack of necessary info to warrant an article separate from parent article folk metal. Lack of bands should be self-explanatory from a quick glance at the article itself. In fact, it's worse than the article appears: the article lists 6 bands. Two of those are not reliably sourced, leaving us with four (and two of those are from blabbermouth, also a bit iffy as a true RS). 2-4 bands doesn't make a genre.

Regarding the sources, take a look at the sources on the page. Now, when we remove all sources that are not considered professional, reliable sources, and all sources that never use the term “oriental metal”, we’re left with two: Kahn-Harris’ book and two reviews on Metal Observer by one author. This isn’t really enough to justify a true genre’s existence.

Even if it is taken as such, there’s the question of the need for a separate article. We need a separate article when there is too much info for the parent article. Granted, as it is, Bardin has added more than enough into the oriental metal article to get past this, but for a moment take a look and consider what is actually needed and not replicated elsewhere.

Most of it is information regarding the handful of bands that could be termed “oriental metal”, which is better placed on their own pages. It’s easy enough to put together lots of info on a few bands, the question is what it actually adds to the article about this genre. And the answer is, not much. Most of it is just general info about those bands, not the formation or characteristics of this genre itself.

Let’s look at the “development” section, for example, when we cut the parts that add nothing to the notion of an oriental metal article itself:

Since the middle of the 1990s, other bands in Israel have pursued an oriental metal direction. In explaining the use of oriental sound in her band's music, the former lead singer of Distorted, Miri Milman notes that Israel is known for its Middle-Eastern culture and that "it is very hard to ignore it if you are born here".

That’s it. The rest is just general blurb about the bands in question, nothing to do with the development of this genre. Let’s take a look at the “Origins” section too, cut down to what is needed and not already in the “oriental metal” section of the folk metal page:

Mark LeVine cites the Israeli band Orphaned Land as the founder of oriental metal "in that they were one of the first bands anywhere in the region to mix oriental, Arabic sounds into metal.” Predating both Orphaned Land and Melechesh, Salem was formed as far back as 1985 with their first album Creating Our Sins released in 1992. The album Kaddish featured a Hebrew cover version of a traditional Yiddish song S'Brent ("Haayara Boeret") originally written by the Polish Jewish poet Mordechai Gebirtig. The band has made use of non-traditional instruments like the darbuka.

Again, this isn’t the sort of thing that warrants a full article. The “Beyond Israel” section can be cut in it’s entirety, it mentions some bands from the region and bands with members from such regions, but with no indications given of why this makes them “oriental metal” this is rendered pretty much meaningless.

As an article on “metal bands from the middle-eastern region”, it’s very good. As an article on a genre, “oriental metal”, it’s distinctly lacking. The qualify a genre's existence you need more than just a number of bands from a particular region: you need a good number of reliable sources using the term and identifying it as a genre. There are metal bands from that region, and no doubt a number of them utilise characteristics of oriental music in their sound. But you need more than that to qualify a genre article.

Also note for any considering voting “merge”, that this has already been suggested, but Bardin removed the merge proposal tag, refusing to accept the suggestion. Prophaniti (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How precisely is a genre with, at most, one or two real sources and about 4 bands "established enough to warrant an article"?
In regards to the previous discussions, take a look at them: you'll find neither was in any way conclusive, nor backed up with good logic. Prophaniti (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LeVine's professorship is itself irrelevant to this discussion: his qualification has nothing to do with heavy metal music. So him being an academic is in this particular instance not meaningful. He has had a book published that concerns metal, but it's political/religious overtones call it's use into question (what I mean is, a published book is considered a good source because it is verified by the publishers. In this case, it could be questioned just how much the text is focused on study of heavy metal, and how much other factors led to it's publication). In addition, do these authors truly assert it as a genre, or are they simply using the term, potentially to describe metal bands from the region? After all, other authors will use terms like "Brazilian metal" without meaning it as an assertion of genre. Also, another point: "oriental metal" might be a very good descriptor of Orphaned Land's genre, and that of a couple of other bands, but even if it is it's not a genre. "Pirate metal" is a good genre term for bands like Running Wild, Alestorm and Swashbuckle. But that's not enough bands for a genre.
As to "all the critics, journalists and band members that use the term", this is made out to sound like much much more than it is. As I have said, I've gone through the sources you've given. Many of them are not reliable sources when it comes to genre classification, not by wikipedia's standards. Interviews with band members for example do not count, for just the same reason that we don't use a band's myspace page as a source. In truth, all those other citations contain -one- reliable journalist who uses the term as a genre.
"Why should a fairly decent article that focuses specifically on an underground middle-eastern genre be relegated to a mere paragraph or two in a broader article on its parent genre that is mostly European based?" - The answer to that is simple: there aren't enough bands/sources/info to back it all up. What we have only warrants a section within a parent article, in part because it is underground and a very small genre. This is not bias, it is not persecution, it's simply that if something is a very small genre, it doesn't need a whole article to itself. It's also got nothing to do with western bias. My reasoning never makes any reference to anything like that, the reasoning would apply just the same whatever part of the world it came from.
And yet again, the whole point of a merger proposal, like a deletion one, is that it's not just about you and I, Bardin. Other people could have joined in. Prophaniti (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have come across numerous AFDs before but I can't recall any nominator writing such long paragraphs as you have repeatedly done here. I'm not going to respond to each of your points because we've been through this tango before and I'm not going to change your mind nor you change mine. But it does appear that your desire to see this article deleted or merge is because, in a nutshell, you feel that "if something is a very small genre, it doesn't need a whole article to itself." That, as far as I know, is not a wiki policy and while you might think your subjective views are facts, the reality is that what might seem unimportant to you might be important to others. I am also quite unaware that a genre requires a specific number of bands before it becomes official. How many bands exactly do you need? --Bardin (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just noticed that the nominator described Blabbermouth as a bit iffy as a true reliable source. This is a source that has routinely been found by fellow wikipedia editors to be one of the most reliable news source for heavy metal music. It is frequently cited in featured articles like Metallica, Motorhead and Slayer. Blabbermouth can also be found as a source of news content on Google news search. I think it speaks volumes that the nominator would contend it to be iffy rather than reliable, in contrast to many other wikipedia editors and Google itself. I strongly urge any other editors interested in this AFD to make their own evaluations on the quality and reliability of the sources. --Bardin (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines in question are the ones on notability. Random example: lists of characters in fictional works. Characters that have a lot of information on them, they really need an article to themselves because they would otherwise make a parent one too big, they warrant articles. Others get placed in a "List of characters" article. There is no need for a separate article for this, that's all there is to it really. As to blabermouth, I meant precisely what I said: that it's iffy. It's fairly useful for news, but whether it could be considered a true professional website on musical genres is a different matter entirely. Just because a source can be used for one thing, doesn't mean it can for everything. And the reason for my lengthy description is because there's such a significant case to be put forward. I fail to see how this has any bearing on the discussion, and currently it's coming across as a form of personal attack, trying to undermine matters on the basis of myself as an editor. Please cease any further such references. Prophaniti (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not in any way shape or form a good argument for keeping it. This is not a discussion of those articles, and they have never entered into it. Saying "Well there are other articles without enough info, so we should keep this one too" doesn't justify it. An article should be able to warrant it's own existence, not have to rely on other inferior articles existing for it to hide behind. If you want to move for them to be deleted/merged, go for it. Prophaniti (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what I meant was that they're all relatively new underground metal movements with Wikipedia articles, and if the Wikipedia coverage of metal is wide enough for these ones, it must be wide enough for this one. For that matter I don't think there are over 5 real "post metal" bands eather. Kakun (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because those articles exist is no reason why this article should exist. It could be that those articles shouldn't exist either, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --JD554 (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note:This discussion was originally closed by me as no consensus, but was re-opened and relisted because of a request on my talk page. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some contesting points: the Huffington Post article is by Mark Levine, who is in the current Oriental metal page. He is one of the two authors who verifies it. And yes, the google book mentions it, but it doesn't appear to actually discuss the genre. That's the point here, we have sources that mention the term, but without a number of sources discussing it in detail it fails the notability criteria. Prophaniti (talk) 09:33, 5 January 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.
More