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. Proto::► 13:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retro metal[edit]

Clearly goes against WP:NEO. dposse 18:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the article on Wolfmother, since all of the references on this subject are simply about this band. Tarinth 19:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to disagree with this, for the sole reason it has nothing to do with Wolfmother. It is someone's opinion that it does just because they are influenced by old band, which doesn't make this true. "Retro metal" is, by the definition of the term, a neologism and shouldn't be added to any article just because MTV or Rolling Stone Magazine decided to describe them as such. dposse 19:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been watching this article for some time. It has not improved, and is still based on some sources trivially mentioning the term "retro metal" or "hipster metal", making the article unverifiable and original research. This is not a notable neo-/protologism. Retro everything seems to be "hip" these days, but we can't have articles to document all such usage, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote certain terms or bands to make them more popular. Even persons listening to the supposed bands of this genre don't use these terms. [1] [2] The bands mentioned in the article were already situated in their well-documented genres (post-rock, hard rock, heavy metal), until the recent adding of "retro metal" to these bands' respective infoboxes. [3] [4] [5] The newly-created Category:Retro metal and Category:Retro metal bands should go too. Prolog 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Resources can be found to satisfy all parties involved, as well as additional information. Retro metal is one of the fastest growing genres in the world, and is worthy of an encyclopedic entry for that purpose alone. I oppose the deletion of both this article and the cat, which I created, and will defend the existence of both until any debate is over. Editor19841 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia is not a crystalball. There are hundreds of terms related to heavy metal music, so we should only document the ones that are already widely in use and well-documented. Prolog 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Prolong.Inhumer 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems pointless - the scene for bands and music like this (stoner rock / doom) has existed for decades already, it hardly requires a new definition because certain elements of the media have decided to pick up on it. Thinginajar 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already an article on doom metal and a ton of subgenres there of. This is redundant and a term that nobody uses. Also, Wolfmother is not metal, so this should be retro rock if anything. Most bands that are forcibly being lumped in would consider retro metal or hipster metal a derogatory term. Olliegrind 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you may not be familiar with the genre, but it isn't a part of doom, nor are there any sources to state it as that. I have proved below that it is used, even by some of the most famous music media sources in the world. - Deathrocker 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about all the bands from the 90s that fit the retro metal description (like Sleep, Spirit Caravan, Count Raven) or all the bands from the 80s (Saint Vitus, The Obsessed, Trouble). Should all these now be retroactively placed into "Retro Metal". This scene has been around since the 80s so why should new bands coming out suddenly be at the forefront of some overhyped music revolution? Bands in the article like Witchcraft, The Sword, and Witch are doom metal. I don't see how this genre can be seen as a new genre when bands have been making this music for decades. Olliegrind 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, the article clearly passes WP:V and WP:OR (which is policy) with ease, it has had mentions in Rolling Stone, MTV, Revolver, Classic Rock, Guitar World, Kerrang![6][7][8]... all prominent music media, there is the research, there it is vertified.

Deleting it on the grounds that the term is relitively new would be foolish, the genre has only been around since the early 2000s, of course the term isn't going to be decades old... but as shown, it has been mentioned in numerous prominent music media forums, and the bands who are a part of it are breaking through into commerical success (thus it passes WP:N) Wolfmother were one of the most famous bands of 05/06.

This isn't a "crystal ball" deal, as the movemet has been around for the last couple of years, and is still around currently. A crystal ball situation would be for something happening in the future, not something that has already happened and is happening right now.

WP:NEO is only a guideline not a policy, and the article passes it anyway, as it has "Reliable sources for neologisms"[9] Rolling Stone magazine the most famous music media outlet in the world, is reliable. MTV the most famous music video outlet in the world, is reliable. Remember this proccess is not a straw man vote... it is to make argument that is does or doesn't pass the policy, as I have shown, it unequivocally does with flying colours. - Deathrocker 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. The article has a serious WP:V problem: Notes do not contain information they are cited to contain, and might even be considered faked. Notes 1 and 2: Trivial mentions of the term "retro metal" on a page about Wolfmother. Note 3: Theilluminati.net, a band's (The Illuminati) own website, containing Revolver screenshot which is titled "Heavy Meta", and the article starts "Hipster rock acts Wolfmother, Witch and The Illuminati...". Thus, magazine article is not about "Hipster Metal" as claimed in the WP article and also, does not verify the sentence before it: It is not entirely clear the origins of the term "hipster metal", but music journalists have been using it in popular magazines such as Revolver, Classic Rock, Guitar World and Kerrang! since around 2005. Note 4: Again, about Wolfmother and used as a source for sentence Bands in this movement take influences from the originators of heavy metal such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Blue Cheer and Deep Purple. Incorrect. Note 5: A commercial link (Amazon.com) to a compilation album, that could be considered promotional and spam. This seems both unverified and unverifiable. Also, WP:NEO clearly states that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." Trivial mentions do not help the fact that the article is original research, and the only way to avoid that would be turning it into a one-sentence stub, a dictionary definition. Prolog 08:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just don't see how a few bands "reviving" an "old sound" makes them a new genre and not just new bands of the genre their sound is said to be "reviving". Inhumer 07:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not familiar with the genre, but if that's truly all it is then the information needs to be merged into the article relevant to the "old sound" and the current article needs to be deleted. New terms for something that hasn't changed don't deserve their own article; it's not like Holocaust Revisionisn has its own article seperate from Holocaust denial, is it? Ours18 06:25, 3 January 2007 (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.