Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathcore

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Not enough votes to form consensus → Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deathcore[edit]

Another imaginary music genre, a combination of Death metal and Hardcore punk. Only one page links here, a band which is specifying this isn't it's genre.—Wahoofive (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable genre. Megan1967 06:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 11:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Term gets over 23,000 google hits, not so not entirely imaginary. Article could do (a lot) to demonstrate notability, however. Alai 20:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've heard of it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:09, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Renomination[edit]

I am nominating this page once more for a multitude of reasons.

For one, the last nomination was two years ago, and no one frequented the page enough to even care about discussion.

My reasons are simple: the article fails on every aspect of WP:MUSIC. The bands listed as deathcore are confirmed to be other genres (most of them are death metal) and are listed as such on Wikipedia and every major source. The genre is simply not notable. Also, the sources listed are mainly unreliable (myspace, Amazon, "deathcore-is-sexy.blogspot, Metal Archives, etc.). The few that are reliable make a passing mention of the genre or none at all. The strongest of them that I saw was a review of Dying Fetus, which pertained to bands ripping of the sound of Dying Fetus as part of a "deathcore" fad. The funny thing is that there is an extensive review of the band's genre on their discussion page, and deathcore is never mentioned..

I think this should be fairly straightforward. --Wick3dd 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the unreliable sources were added 1 day ago and make the article look less encyclopedic then it should. The genre is relatively new, but the term is being used to describe bands by reliable press (e.g popmatters). It is metalcore highly influenced by death metal. Clean up and keep. Kameejl ^(Talk) 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not a genre. Fails WP:MUSIC per nom, agree'd. Scarian ^Talk 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to keep, then the article needs bands which are actually considered deathcore. So far, we have none. This article is over two years old, yet no one still considers it legitimate enough to add it in genre boxes.--Wick3dd 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

metaleater.com Ciaran Meeks: "What is 'Deathcore' you ask? Well, in today's age of more sullen-faced 'cores' than you can shake a walletchain at, 'Deathcore' is apparently a mixture of Death Metal, Hardcore, and Grind, all mixed 'n mashed together to create a brutal and extreme 'new' hybrid".
allmusic.com Alex Henderson: "The term is deathcore, ... What is deathcore? ..., it's essentially metalcore, which isn't to say that Burning Skies is an exact replica of American metalcore bands like Brick Bath, Hatebreed, and Throwdown -- they're similar, certainly, but not identical. Drawing on both death metal and hardcore, Burning Skies' vocals fluctuate between the tortured screaming that metalcore is known for and the deep, guttural growls of death metal. Arguably, deathcore as practiced by Burning Skies and similar bands is a European variation of American metalcore. But whether you choose to describe Murder By Means of Existence as deathcore or metalcore -- and perhaps both terms are applicable -- there is no getting around the fact that this is a very nasty, vicious, bruising sledgehammer of a CD."
mtv.com/news Alexandre Erian: "I don't understand why people take labels so seriously," he continued. "I guess you could call us 'deathcore,' or 'death metal,' or 'death metalcore,' or 'death metal with metalcore influences,' or 'metalcore with death-metal influences.' I like to let the music speak for itself."
List of deathcore bands as defined by metal-observer.com
popmatters.com Adrien Begrand: "such deathcore exercises as "Two Inches from a Main Artery" and "Beneath Dying Skies" combined Cannibal Corpse-style blasting with the melodic intricacy of Morbid Angel"

Kameejl ^(Talk) 23:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for real sources, however those really do not do much for us. One is ascertaining that the band has been lumped into this recent fad, another is a death metal band claiming to be "deathcore". On Wikipedia it is already established that a band is not a reliable source on their genre. Also, the pop matters page cals bands that must be completely underground for lack of information, deathcore. Most of the bands that we actually know (Despised Icon for one) are death metal, and can be cited to the teeth as such. All I am saying is that deathcore seems to be another sub-genre of a sub-genre labeling fad, and if we are going to keep this article, we have to make note of that. Most of these bands are arguably death metal with hardcore influences. --Wick3dd 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up, hits: 471,000 for Google and 466,000 for Yahoo

The genre is also a new genre, a real one, being just a few years old and will take some time to develop. The genre simply put is a fusion of metalcore and death metal.
Deathcore has interwiki's
Also what's interesting is there is a band called Deathcore, coincidence or early origin? --CircafuciX 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last argument may be valid, but hits on google? What needs to be done in order to keep this article is to prove it is notable. That is my main argument. Any band listed as "deathcore" is usually listed (and sourced to the teeth) as death metal. If we keep this article, it cannot remain as it is. The controversial nature of the genre must be addressed, because put quite simply, there is not enough information on the genre to make it a factual document. --Wick3dd 05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Any discussion on the validity of its existence as a genre is asinine and moot. It clearly does exist, is nascent, and will be easier to reference within the next year and a half as more bands get exposure. The bands listed in the article and its sister "List of deathcore bands" article are not "other genres". If they weren't deathcore bands, they wouldn't have been included, as I know what I'm talking about and I keep a strict watch of vandalism and misnomers in both articles (i.e/, additions of the Black Dahlia Murder or Six Feet Under and others in the sister list). This article does need cleaning, but I'm the only person who gives a shit, so please, go ahead and help me make it more up to standards as much is possible with internet resources, but do some research and cease these constant annoying deletion nominations (for Wiki brownie points. Congratulations.) There is a chunk of actual information there, and I will be the first person to say the article needs a lot of cleanup, but the data necessary to do so is extant.

You know, Head Automatica list themselves as "grindcore" on myspace, but that doesn't make them grind. Just because musicians, who are notoriously pretentious and uninformed about THEIR OWN MUSIC, in this scene claim to be death metal, doesn't make them that. I could claim to be Hindu, but I'm, sadly, not. These are clearly death metal influenced metalcore bands. These are not "death metal bands with hardcore influences" That is redundant, if you know anything about the history of death metal. Not much debate is necessary. The controversy is very well addressed in the article, also.

If you can have Chris Crocker on Wikipedia, then the level of seriousness to be considered a factual document and important can't be too high, no?

No offense. This nomination is unwarranted, though I'm aware of the articles faults, but I'd like to remind you it is easier to create than destroy (to turn a cliche). I'd rather you spend more time enriching it.Karen_Carpentry

I agree with above. Commented Wick3dd with similar topics from above. --CircafuciX 06:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. Forgive me if I came off condescending. You will notice above, that I gave many suggestions if we do keep it. I simply saw this article, saw the terrible sourcing and listing of death metal bands as deathcore, and figured hey this doesn't need to be here. I did not go through the deletion process on purpose, though I could of. The purpose of this debate is to decide A. should this article be here and B. if so what do we do to improve it. I am here to help, not to tear down. First off, I suggest we find solid cases of deathcore bands. So far Despised Icon seems to be the only concrete case. Also, what you were saying about bands determining their genre is what I have been saying all along. That is why I think this article (or thought) should be deleted. One band claiming to be deathcore didn't seem to be too reliable.

However, the problem of sources still exists. We have a shaky notability at best. That needs to improve. Thanks for the time and consideration.

PS: please leave out anecdotal evidence. Chris Crocker exists, whether you think he is lame or not. Thanks --Wick3dd 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, fair enough. Forgive me, also, if I seem overly annoyed or testy, or come off rude or impetuous, but I've dealt with a lot of vandalism and dumb edits, and then two motions for deletion of late, usually by people who haven't heard any of these bands. Its an uphill battle, definitely. I'm pretty much waiting for the Decibel/Revolver expose (that should really come any day now, really), although I hold no pretension that the life of this article is based on the pulse of the metalcore trend and in the (unlikely) event that deathcore (also known as "scenegrind") does not attain high visibility in 2008, I'd probably motion to delete this myself. Or I'll eat my hat. And I don't bring up Crocker for being lame, but for being immaterial, regarding the idea of "notability". And what I meant was that many of these bands claim to be just death metal, when they clearly aren't. You won't find any theory-centered breakdown of deathcore for at least a year, but in the interim, this page does inform and it does give the gist to curious browsers, of which there are many. I don't think deathcore is splitting hairs as much as the subgenres of punk or house music on wikipedia.Karen_Carpentry

I understand your vandalism predicament. If we are to keep this a sane article, it needs to be sourced, and possibly protected. --Wick3dd 08:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm not adept at utilizing the wiki functions at all (aside from really basic things), so I've been hampered as seemingly the only person interested in the article's upkeep with an interest in the article, as opposed to two or three roving wikipedia users who have attempted to make it their own ego-project. My revisions and my, admittedly incomplete, citations are stopgap measures to stop the battery of OR and unsourced claims that have haunted this article. I'm planning on getting versed on the proper format, but for now my goal is to extend it from a stub while preventing deletion and making it more readable than it is right now.Karen_Carpentry —Preceding comment was added at 08:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Scarian (I can't believe I'm actually saying that) *gags* Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ...There is nothing wrong with agreeing with me :-D Scarian ^Talk 19:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, this is not a vote. If you want to delete it, post valid reasons. Thank you.--Wick3dd 19:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is pretty flawless now. So, I move to end this discussion once and for all.Karen_Carpentry (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it would be biased of us to close it, so just wait for the end.--Wick3dd (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]