Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral doom

: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 redirect to Doom metal. Tone 21:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

=[[Funeral doom]]=

:{{la|Funeral doom}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Funeral doom}})

Procedurally completing AfD (was missing steps 2 & 3). I would assume the reasoning would be the lack of independent sources to prove the notability of this genre. I am neutral. Ravendrop 07:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - There are some book hits[http://www.google.com/#q=%22Funeral+doom%22&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&ei=AilZTff4M4OClAenm53PBw&start=10&sa=N&fp=92eba96966526d96] (not counting the Wikipedia source books), but that material probably isn't enought to maintain the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect to Doom metal.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Doom metal. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above but leave history. Per Uzma Gamal's "probably" I don't think the sources have been fully evaluated. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2011 (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.