Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy metal fashion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. The delete !votes - besides being well outnumbered - have also not established that the topic itself is non-notable. If it needs more references, if it needs some POV fixing, if it needs any sort of clean-up, by all means, hit the "edit this page" button. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy metal fashion

Heavy metal fashion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)


This deletion is per the article being in serious violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and having no citations/ sources/ references. The article is horrible and (here's my own POV) I think any metal fan would be ashamed of it. It is so completely wrong. Delete! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - There is a source, but only one, in the "historical origins" section.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Note - Yeah, it's a reference to an article about Rob Halford being gay...not exactly helpful. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - are those really strong arguments to keep the article? Most of the time policies are used in arguments for or against... ScarianCall me Pat 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - No those aren't strong arguments at all. "Fantastic" is POV as I could easily say this article is total lies and crap (and it is). It doesn't matter how long the page has been around, the number of edits on it, or how much it's been viewed. The fact that it's been viewed so much is a bad thing due to what kind of state the article is in. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Yeah, it's really an irrelevant argument. And it's not fantastic at all, the article is an apalling mess. It's that big, and it lacks a single reference. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Note - The page does have a single reference. Please familiarize yourself with the page.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Still, one reference is pathetic. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Requires citations, but is definitely culturally relevant. Also, WP:NPOV is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to improve. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I didn't just cite WP:NPOV. Please read the other things. And "culturally relevant" is POV. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: It seems that the objection is to the content rather than the existence of the topic. If so the objecting user(s) should do a rewrite instead of deleting the article entirely.--Thalia42 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Actually, now that you mention it, I am opposed to the existence of the topic as it is arguably non notable (you are either a metal fan or not) and I think it's hideous to have such a topic as an article. That is POV, though. A comprehensive rewrite is not enough. It would be easier to delete it and redo it, if that is what you wanted. The whole article is messed up. Full of weasel words, peacock terms, orginal research, point of view, misinformation and no citations, references or sources. There's no chance of rewriting it. Besides I think article about a certain subculture's attire are inane. The attire or "fashion" is what you make it. Just because there is a thin thread of commnality of "fashion" in a subculture (due to people imitating the bands and such) does not constitute a wikipedia page designed to iterate such said inaneness. It's totally non notable IMO. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Note - There is a source. But only one.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Regardless of the comment above, there are certainly recognizable fashions among the metal scene and recognizable looks, and I feel that it's quite reasonable to document those if it can be done in a NPOV and well-researched manner without descending into original research. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - The problem is that you can't document it. There is no research on it that is comprehensive. It would be impossible. People would disagree. It's up to the individual. Did I also mention that this article is full of wrong info?
Comment - I think that some aspects of this topic can be documented, regarding origins and influences. I think that "what's cool and what's not among the rocker fans" is what cannot be documented.

Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE - Also, I should point out that there are no fashion articles about such things as rock, emo, pop, country, jazz, etc. There's a reason. There are only a few music fashion articles on wikipedia. Hip-hop fashion, punk fashion and gothic fashion that I can find. All of these should be deleted as well. Same thing with subculture. There is no heavy metal subculture article (as it would be inane), but there is a punk and goth subculture article. Both should also be deleted. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec x2) It is unclear with some of the material in the article what is OR and what is simply in need of citing-sources, but I do not find it to be unsalvageable. And if one performs some basic source-searching it becomes apparent that this is a topic that quite easily passes WP:N. Keep and improve with proper sourcing. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Those books you mentioned talk more about genres, the music of heavy metal and how it developed more than anything else. Some of them may talk slightly about subculture, but I don't think any talk about "fashion." The thing with subculture and fashion is, is that it changes person to person and everyone's interpretation will be different. Therefore it should not be made into an article. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Note - This article also breaks WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a primary source nor is it a crystal ball among other things. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Some of them, such as this one very clearly talk about fashion. Have you attempted to find any sources? It is part of Wikipedia guidelines that you do so before nominating an article for deletion on the basis of "no citations/sources". --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I nominated it for deletion for a number of reasons. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Right, and as others have been pointing out in this discussion, WP:NPOV and WP:OR and "this article is horrible" (all from your initial statement) are reasons to tag or improve an article; they are not reasons to delete an article. It is part of Wikipedia guidelines that you make your own attempt to find sources before nominating an article for deletion and declaring "no sources". Okay, end of lecture. :) --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT - I should also point out that having a fashion article about a subculture (one that is still continuing) is unencyclopedic in nature. Everyone has a different perspective of what constitutes "fashion" and it differs from person to person. Therefore it cannot be discussed in an encylopedic way. Everyone's POV is different and will come into effect in this article. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - As I explained to Nav, I'm really on the fence about this. I'd say that the article is relevent (to a certain degree), but since Nav pointed it out, I've noticed the article is a total mess. I think every article should have at least one reference or source, but it is simply apalling to see an article of this size with this much info without a SINGLE reference. I had to convice myself that they are there, and I just missed them - but I honestly cannot find a single reference amongst that mess of original research and POV. No article of this size should be without a single reference... if this doesn't get deleted, it needs a serious overhaul... I would vote "keep", and push for a complete and utter re-write, but I'm more inclined to vote "delete" because I know that if it is kept, that re-write will never happen. I doubt a single source will be added a month after the AfD. So, although I'm on the fence now, expect me to come back and change my neutrallity to delete, as I'd say it's better to delete this even if you think it's relevant, rather than have this joke of an article around. (Just as a quick addition, as I got an edit conflict with Nav's reply above mine - I could not agree more with Nav's last comment). ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Note - There is a single reference.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Many of the heavy metal related articles are just as awful as this one with little to no references or citations. I've been doing my part to help improve the quality of some of these articles but I'm certainly not capable of improving every single one of them. Heavy metal fashion is a subject that merits an article on wikipedia. I have personally come across the subject in many serious literature on heavy metal. In fact, one of the problems I have with the academia treatment on heavy metal is the overwhelming focus on sociological issues (including fashion) at the expense of the musicological side. I do believe this article can be rewritten and improved to a high standard (even a featured article status) if some editors were to collaborate on it, remove all the original research and look up some reliable sources for the subject. --Bardin (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I am neutral on this one but on a keepish side so I will change my vote if something changes. It is full of POV and OR and needs toning for NPOV and reliable sources but then again like Nav said if the views between authors are too different there could be problems. Although the article ties on to the fashion of heavy metal, there needs to be a complete overhaul to this article. Simply put, fix it now or let deletion take away all the filth in one press of a button and we can start anew without having to deal with incredible OR and some incorrect information as well. Oh and metalhead needs a lot of work too... just two references... Also, just a suggestion of any rewrite, I think the ideals of fashion should be separated like the heavy metal music article for genres and then talk about the fashion of each genre (although the underground ones will be very difficult to come up with and black metal "fashion" was an example of that). −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think metalhead deserves to be deleted moreso that heavy metal fashion. --Bardin (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Go discuss it over there. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The article as it currently stands is a horrible mess, full of OR and POV. There is not a single reference despite its prestigious length. However, I believe the topic itself is notable and that it should be relatively easy to find some sources talking about fashion and fashion trends within heavy metal over the years. If a comprehensive rewrite were achieved then I think the article should be kept. However, I don't care about it enough to bother editing it myself. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Note - There is a single reference.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - heavily original research, with no verifiable reliable sources and not written from a neutral point of view.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    comment - with all due respect, those aren't reasons to delete an article - those are core policies which are easily fixable. This is a question of whether or not the subject is notable. The only time WP:V applies is if the topic is not verifiable. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is not a delete it's a fix-it. The subject of the article certainly exists. It's no different from Punk fashion. It has a category attached to it and several articles that are associated to it as well. It just needs to be improved. Seal Clubber (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The article definitely needs to be cleaned up and sourced. Lot of OR, POV. It needs to be renamed too, fashion is not what I would call it, Metal attire or something like that. Weltanschaunng 14:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment I agree, the title should be heavy metal attire or something on those lines. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have changed my vote to delete and merge. I propose that the article be merged with with Heavy Metal for now, and possibly be recreated if more cited text can be added to the topic. Weltanschaunng 09:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment - While the nominator claims that he/she did not know which way the above user would "vote", I feel there might be a cavnassing issue here: [1]. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Note - Sorry but I did'nt CANVASS and your point is totally moot as I asked about 10 people to vote here and most voted for keep. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. - BUT delete all unsourced material. I am the person who provided the one reference this page has. Which is to say that I at one point thought there might be some virtue in beginning a wide-ranging revision to this article to bring it up to some standards regarding the documentation of fashion trends and origins. I have repeated in my comments above that there is a reference in this article because to the extent that arguments for deletion are made on the basis of there being "NO REFERENCES" I think they raise at least some question about the readers' familiarity with the article. With all of that said, I have been watching this page for awhile, and have found it to be a magnet for users opining about "what counts" and "what doesn't count" as metal attire today. Much of this reflects an unencyclopedic concern with "fitting in" and futile efforts at trend-setting. I'm not sure that the attraction of this a topic for these kinds of contributions can be overcome by any amount of research. But I think it might be worth deleting of all material regarding current trends and refocusing what's left in terms of origins and influences....which CAN be documented.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Agreed. If this article survives, which it looks like it will, I am going to personally go through the article and delete about the whole last half of it among other things.'

[edit] Please Note

IMPORTANT - I'm not sure why people aren't getting this, but let me reiterate. Having a fashion article about a subculture (one that is still continuing) is unencyclopedic in nature. Everyone has a different perspective of what constitutes "fashion" and it differs from person to person. Therefore it cannot be discussed in an encylopedic way. Everyone's POV is different and will come into effect in this article. Secondly, there are no fashion articles about such things as rock, emo, pop, country, jazz, soul, funk, blues, etc and they all have subcultures as well. Should we make a fashion article on all those genres? NO, because it makes no sense, much like this article! Any fashion article about an ongoing subculture perpetuates POV and is non-encyclopedic. Lastly, if this article is kept, as it look like it will be (unbelievably, even though no one's cited pollicies), then I move to rename this article Heavy metal attire as a few users mentioned above. At least we would get rid of the blasphemous "fashion" word. And yes, I always talk with a certain amount of POV on most talk pages, but that doesn't mean that my main points are wrong, damnit. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you've already made your point. Let the discussion proceed unabated. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You cannot cite WP:POINT to me. Read it, perhaps. I am the one citing policy so it is you that needs to stop bring up your points, if you were making one. I'm not breaking any part of that or any other rule. Pleas stop accusing people Wisdom89. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the salvageable content from this article (if there is any) can be merged to Heavy Metal#Attire. I really don't think it warrants its own article in absence of refs. Just an idea though. Weltanschaunng 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. If the article is kept then I am liable to agree with you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Note to the nominator. I'm going to ask you politely to please stop canvassing. Thank you. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to strike your comment as you obviously did not read my above response to your ridiculous allegations. Someone already warned me on my talk page and then striked out their own warning after seeing what I actually did and after I explained it. Please read above or my talk page if not satisfied. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tlogmer and Dpmath. Culturally relevant topic, sources available; however, I would support removing unsourced material, as this article seems like it would be privy to a lot of OR. GlassCobra 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd just thought I should bring attention to the visual element section in the featured article Heavy metal music. There's two paragraphs there on heavy metal fashion fully cited and referenced. So it can be done. Whether you think those two paragraphs are enough or whether there's room for expansion in a separate article is up to you. With regards to the suggestion for a name change, I would note that fashion is a broader term that encompass hair style as well as clothing whereas the term attire tend to refer only to clothing. --Bardin (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I read through the deletion article and I think the topic is alright, but everything is wrongly justified or one view of its events and for instance the origins are totally and utterlly wrong. If anyone watched or researched documentaries and articles on the origin of heavy metal clothing you would ultimately know it was Rob Halford whom bought clothes for his band Judas Priest and started the craze. Also, you then would know that this and I quote:

The influence of modern military fashion on heavy metal fashion is significant with metalheads been known to wear modern military clothing like field jackets and articles of camouflage and olive drab green uniforms like shirts and/or trousers to wear alongside their black T-shirts and black combat boots. This influence could be due to the impact of the Vietnam War on popular culture in the United States during the 1970s and the 80's, with images of American Vietnam veterans wearing their old combat uniforms in civilian life, as well as the fresh memories of the conflict were still in the minds of many Americans.

wear modern military clothing like field jackets and articles of camouflage and olive drab green uniforms like shirts and/or trousers to wear alongside their black T-shirts and black combat boots.

As I was saying in my introduction this is one view which can be aquited to America, and my second point this is the 80's. Not when the founders of the fashion were in the 70's.

Furthermore, this article goes away from the 'heavy metal' era and into the modern 'power metal' era in the 90's with blind guardian being primed example in 'other influences'. In Hairstyles they get mixed up between Glam Era and Gothic era amongst others.

Either the article has to change it's name to 'metalhead wear through the ages' or it should be deleted.

--METALFREAK04 (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - appears to be primarilly or entirely original research. A strong indicator of this problem is the fact that the article has over 500 edits in four years (over 50 edits just in this year), yet still lacks reliable sources for nearly all of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete - This is arctile is should be deleted.Metal heads some follow the fashion and others don't care.Metal is very diverse.It doesn't follow any look —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.93.250 (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have made my decision finally and it should simply be deleted. It is laden with POV issues, most of/or the entire article is full of OR and not written with NPOV in mind. It needs more sources (reliable ones) which something really should have been done within the three years (hard to believe) of its existence. Also, the fact that we are taking ideas and pooling it as a generalized culture is enough to bare. If it doesn't get deleted then this is a wakeup call. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 20:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a topic which has unquestionably been the subject of plenty of 3rd party sources; music magazines have been filled with them over the past 30 years. The existence of POV and OR are in no sense legitimate reasons for deletion of an encyclopedic subject, and this is one. Also, this is pretty clearly a bad-faith nomination. Chubbles (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Chubbles' comments. Legitimate subject matter and a questionable nomination. Peter Fleet (talk) 11:21, 16 March 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.