Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu 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 Speedy/Snowball Keep per proven notability and consensus through the discussion. The article does need come cleanup, which would avoid it from being mistakenly taken for a neologism and being nominated again. (non-admin closure). RedThunder 11:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Nu metal]]=

:{{la|Nu metal}} ([{{fullurl:Nu metal|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nu metal}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article focuses on a neologism that has been tagged onto many mainstream/popular rock groups by a handful of music critics. It is poorly referenced, and seems to rely heavily on original research. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: appears to be notable' [http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=%22Nu%20Metal%22%20+Music "Nu Metal" +Music] returns 2,890,000 GHITS. Also, there are multiple categories for :Category:Nu metal musical groups present on Wikipedia (created as far back as 2005), so I doubt this is a word that someone WP:MADEUP recently. ~ AmeIiorate U T C @ 04:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it's a notable subject, but it needs immense improvement. = ∫tc 5th Eye 04:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: legit genre mentioned on all major music media site has like a half million hits on google it could be improved.--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs cleanup, but is certainly notable. I get [http://news.google.com/news?q=nu%20metal&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=in 606 Google News hits] and [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22nu+metal%22&btnG=Search+Books 479 Google Books hits]. AfD is not cleanup. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It certainly is a notable topic. The nominator brings up no policy to delete it by, just the fact that it may need clean-up Tavix (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely a notable topic; as others have said, it needs to be cleaned up. BBCOFFEECAT (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Snowball Keep Widely used term, but article is a tad unencyclopedic in tone. Nerdluck34 (The master of sock puppets) 07:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination. Term is widely used and surpasses the state of neologism in any aspect. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:03, 31 August 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.