Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death/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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death/doom

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

We recently deleted/redirected one article forked from Doom metal, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Funeral_doom, and this article appears to be in exactly the same boat. The article says little more than does the section whence it's split in Doom metal, and nothing that couldn't be handled just as well in the parent article section. I suggest a D&R just as we did with Funeral doom. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a subgenre notably separate from both doom metal and death metal. The article could use more citations on its notability, but it could easily be built upon.[1] [2]Lebowbowbowski (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 20:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Keep - A quick Google search indicates this is an emerging subgenre of underground metal, distinct from doom metal. It's a neologism, but it strikes me as prevalent enough to be notable. I'm sure stringent adherents of notability guidelines will differ with me on that. Keeping for future improvement seems to make sense to me. Carrite (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1)How can it be an "emerging" genre when almost every example the article lists was formed in the 1990s? (The label "emerging" is troubling too, being a listed dogwhistle for WP:BALLS.) (2) If more can be said about the genre, what prevents it from being handled as part of the parent article? We're not talking about whether the genre gets a mention here, but rather whether it is sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article rather than being treated as part of Doom metal.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:50, 17 March 2011 (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.