Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metalhead

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 keep. Cirt (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metalhead

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks accurate factual information, contains original research, lacks neautrality, contains statements that might be interpreted as personal opinions and encourages highly generalised and unverified stereotypes, some of them negative. For these reasons, I have marked it for deletion. Ngk44 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term metalhead is a verifiable term used in modern English music conversation. Article is a {refimprove} article. Not an AfD. Fair Deal (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article may be bad and in sore need of a rewrite, but the topic of Metalhead is blatantly notable. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article certainly needs work (cleanup, refs), but doesn't need deletion. Random name (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my vote - I like the idea of renaming the page to "Heavy Metal subculture" with metalhead as a redirect. Random name (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant, conditional and weak Keep. As is the article is crap. Badly written, badly sourced, very POV and feeding on selected sterotypes in particular countries. Even the article name is a nonsense, I've been a metal fan for years and have never heard anyone described as a 'Metalhead'. However, I think a single page on the Heavy Metal subculture is notable and has value, but it should be called somthing encyclopedic with a mention that 'Metalhead' is a collquialism used in certain places. It would then need masses of cleanup. On the basis that deletion is not cleanup, I vote a very weak keep, but I strongly doubt anyone will actually do the work in which case I'm very tempted to say lose it.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting - people keep saying that this page is poorly cited PoV. While there is definitely some PoV in it, it probably has more cites in it than I would have expected. It's possible that the cites need more context, particularly in terms of locales, but a good part of the stuff in this article is indeed cited. Random name (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The first six cites, which support the first two paragraphs, are all from the same book and I suspect are parroting that books POV. The parpagraph 'Authenticity' is well cited, but a rather peculiar tangent for such focus. the rest of the article is totally uncited. I particular like the sentance A list of metalhead interests lines up well with the song topics and lyrical content used by metal bands. The interests vary by subgenre, but in general they include horror films, Science fiction, occultism, swords and sorcery-oriented fantasy, European and US history, blood and gore imagery, swords, knives, and firearms, religion, tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption and last but not least death; the act of killing,emotions associated with, and sometimes even the glorification of it. Which is a ludicrously broad statement especialy when its totally uncited.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lose. I Agree. The article should be named "Metal Subculture" with Metalhead listed as a slang term used to refer to members of the specific social group. That way, the article could be expanded to list and explain the many different types of metal culture (e.g. Goths, folk metal, mainstream metal...) rather than generalising fans of metal under one set stereotype as this article does. However, as I doubt anyone will actually bother to clean up this article, I vote lose it.

I'd be wary of overexpanding the scope of this article; heavy metal as a "subculture" can be said to have some defining characteristics (at least in the context of a given time period and ___location), but subgroups may be pushing it too far. Random name (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wether you like it or not, the term exists. End. Iaberis (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of terms exist, that doesn't mean they are notable enough for a wikipedia article because wikipedia is not a dictionary. All this argument support is having a redirect. Besides, if the notabillity criteria is just about the term existing the article can be trimmed right down to a very brief description of the history and usage of the term, rather than the current sprawling mess that is addressing various random facts about the heavy metal scene, all under a label which is not really encyclopedic and only applies to certain parts of the world.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting to note that the only one of the cites that appears to use the phrase 'Metalheads' is a book with that as the title. All the others seem to use phrases like 'Heavy Metal Fans', which is what I'd expect to be honest.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my personal knowledge, "metalhead" was certainly a current and widely-used term in the late 1980s/early 1990s in the United Kingdom. Google searches tell me it doesn't have much currency in the internet age, but that doesn't mean it isn't a plausible search term for someone of my generation. (Damn, I feel old.)
I think what we have here is a plausible search term but a non-notable subject, so "metalhead" should be a redirect to somewhere. I'd recommend redirect to Heavy metal music until such time as we have a decent article on heavy metal subculture.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment my experience is more the 90's in the UK. Don't recall 'metalheads', but phrases like 'metaler' or 'rocker' were common, as was 'mosher' or 'headbanger'. I recall 'rivethead' as well. Of course you also had the 'thrashers', 'glammies', 'grebos', etc, which kinda underlines how daft it is to refer to such a wide genre as one particular colloquial phrase. It would be like putting all of goth sub culture under 'spookykid' :o) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US we call them metalheads or, less frequently, headbangers.Yilloslime ^T_C 20:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that's universal accross the whole US. My wife is American and used to work in music industry, including Gutiar Player magazine, and she doesn't consider this to be the main phrase used to describe heavy metal fans. I'm not saying it isn't used, but it quite clearly isn't the only, or even majority, term. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs a clean, not a deletion. _Met^ty 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heavy metal music per S Marshall. The term isn't that notable, and most of the article is either unsourced or a summary of another, main article. It seems a bit redundant to me to identify this one verbal element of the heavy metal subculture and elevate it to article status; whatever is notable about the metalhead is there because a metalhead is part of the heavy metal culture. That the term exists is a good thing but doesn't warrant an article. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, S Marshall, if you have The Eagle Has Landed at hand, burn me a copy please! Drmies (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A metalhead is a person, so it seems misguided and inappropriate to redirect on page about a type of person to an article on a type of music. Heavy metal music, metalheads, and heavy metal subculture are 3 different (albeit related) topics, so they're best treated in separate articles. Yes, metalhead could be written, and maybe it would better to rename the page "headbanger" or "heavy metal enthusiast" or something like that, but redirecting to heavy metal music seems like an easy step in the wrong direction. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A metalhead is a fan of heavy metal music. I'm sure you are not calling me misguided, and I don't see what's inappropriate about proposing a merge from the fan-article to the larger article on the subject of which they are a fan--and "metalhead" simply has very little status as a subject in serious publications. The term is mentioned plenty, but where are the reliable sources that actually discuss the entity without constant reference to the heavy metal scene/music? It's easy to imagine hooligans (easily independently notable) not watching the game because they are too busy, but a metalhead who goes to the show and doesn't care about listening to the band? Drmies (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I hadn't noticed the subculture section in Heavy Metal. So long as the article isn't too long for merging, I'd say a merge probably makes sense. Random name (talk) 09:45, 18 September 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.