Talk:Shred metal

This article was nominated for deletion on February 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was no concensus.

Untitled

There is no such thing as "shred metal." There is shred, and metal. Metal guitarists often shred, and shredders often play metal, but there is no "shred metal."

agreed

Exactly. WTF is this page?

I also agree with that. There's no such thing as "shred metal". Hell, the article can only list 7 artists anyway, not enough to qualify a genre without significant external source evidence.

Since there are now what looks like 4 people saying the page should not exist, and no defenders, I'll officially suggest it be deleted. If no solid arguments appear here within the next few days/week, I'll go ahead. Prophaniti 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looking around there appears to have already been a short debate on deletion. However, I for one found this unsatisfactory. Most of those arguing to keep it simply said that some artists describe themselves as it. But if you take a look around and made articles for every single name bands give themselves, we'd have thousands of these articles. A genre is not worth noting just because a handful of bands term themselves by that name. This article can come up with a pathetic 7 artists, and some of those don't mention "shred metal" in their articles anyway. My argument is thus: if a band is not big enough to have an article on wikipedia, then it is equally not big enough to have it's opinion taken into account. In other words, the only bands that might call themselves "shred metal" are not on here, and thus what they call themselves is meaningless. I have been into the metal scene for a long time and have never once heard the term "shred metal". It's ridiculous. Some bands are thrash. Some bands are speed. Some bands are a mixture of those and others. But this article neither provides a selection of "shred metal" artists, nor gives an adequate definition of the supposed genre. If it is possible to do so, I suggest starting up debate for deletion again. Can this be done? (I'm not familiar with some of the more advanced proceedures) Prophaniti 08:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already discussed this article with admin Wiki alf as I believed it was ripe for a second nomination. Nothing has been done since it's first nom to try and improve it. It's still a "make believe" genre. I would vote to replace the AfD box and it go through a second round. 156.34.218.199 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some reliable sources come along, I can't see a reason why it shouldn't just be a redirect to Shred guitar.--Alf ^melmac 10:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. My only thought there is that Shred guitar is equally bad when it comes to original research and is a magnet for POV pushers and poetic "virtuoso" dealers. Virtuoso, as an adjective, is one of the ugliest and most inappropriately used words on Wikipedia and should be banned. 156.34.142.110 12:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that the fact that Dan Bukspans book "The Encyclopaedia of Heavy Metal" having shred metal as a genre in its genre section, and being mentioned frequently throuhout the book is ging to be ignored? 210.84.39.29 09:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(note: I realise this is a long part, please read all of it before discussing further) Well until someone mentions it and actually uses it to improve the article, yes, it is going to be ignored. Because evidently people aren't aware of it. If this book really does talk about shred metal, then use it to better the article, don't just come here and whine on the discussion page. However, even this book simply mentioning "shred metal" doesn't necessarily warrant the existence of this article. Mainly because we have two kinds of reason for backing up an article, as I see it: quality opinion and quantity opinion. Quantity opinion is general consensus, what most people say. Quality opinion is what someone with greater authority says, such as a professor talking about his area of study. In such a case, quality can outweigh quantity. However, there is no such authority with this particular topic. There is no "professor of metal" as far as I'm aware, and something being printed in a single book doesn't necessarily have any more impact or weight than one person on here saying one thing or another. If this book does make reference to shred metal, then use it to improve the article, and that may in itself show the use of the book. What I mean is, put in what the book says. Part of my complaint about this article is not just that I haven't heard of shred metal, but that the article itself is so barren. It tells almost nothing about what this brand of metal is, what defines it, and it can list a negligible 7 artists. So, if this book you mention does talk about shred metal, what does it say? Put that in here so that we might have an article that actually tells you something. Because if you can come up with an adequate definition of "shred metal", and a good selection of artists that fit in there, I'm perfectly willing to accept it's existence. But right now, there is no need for the term "shred metal", because there's no music that doesn't fit perfectly into other, more widely acknowledged genres. Prophaniti 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Look at this:

[1]

If you read through it, it mentions shred metal as another name for neo-classical metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mezmerizer (talk • contribs) 02:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)