This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music/Music genres task force Groove metal is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre Rock music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

Archives
May 2006 - February 2009

This page as well as nu metal have been reverted. Learn to edit. You dont DELETE everything. You pick thorough the parts and if they are ABSOLUTELY FALSE or completely unverifiable, then remove it.70.119.201.161 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look the words "groove metal" up on any search engine you wouldn't get much. I noticed people were using websites like last.fm and metal archives for history on the term during the discussion for the article's deletion, both non reliable sources. And the only reliable source even used in this article is Pantera's allmusic entry. The only other major sources I've really found on the genre are Blender refering to "Welcome to the Jungle" and I've read a book called The Rough Guide to Rock that dubs White Zombie "metal groove". Neither of which go indepth on any history. Terms in wider use like blues-metal, pop metal(well I tried to give this one a page, but it was unfortunatly deleted), and southern metal don't even have articles here. Can anyone find anything about this style's origin, history, anything? This article's notability is on thin ice. RG (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about "post-thrash"? Portillo (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to support that these two terms are interchangeble. "Post-thrash" isn't really a notable style as well. RG (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Blender and Allmusic are enough. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Neither of these sources give a history of the music or a description of how the music sounds. Does anyone have any other reliable sources that mention this style? RG (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic hardly even recognises thrash as a genre, sure they have an article on it, and use the term in reviews the odd time, but they never use it as the actual genre of the album they are reviewing. And why the hell does it say groove metal is a mix between hip-hop, dance, and hard rock and the citation of which leads to something about Korn? hardly a groove metal band. Also why was it necessary to cut this article down so much, it was hardly the biggest and best in the first place. Since when was groove metal not a genre, look at the bands, I mean some of them are extrememly influential, just look at exhorder, pantera and machine head in particular. Why does there have to be this elitism? look at all these emo core genres a new one seems to be made every day and there seems to be plenty of articles on them at least last time I checked. I may start editing this article.--Thrashattack84 (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about ^[1] Syxxpackid420 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That reference isn't reliable. RG (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groove Metal was given as a term to replace "Post-thrash". Groove metal is a genre. Get over it. This article isn't going to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.209.21 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of recognition this genre has, I'm surprised there aren't more sources explaining its existence. I mean, it's in pretty wide use... then again, that was shown by unreliable sources such as Metal Archives and Last.fm. There's going to be a lot of change around the metal-related parts of Wikipedia once this article's gone. (I'm not taking a side in anything here, just commenting.) --LordNecronus (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone give me a reason why Rate Your Music would be considered a reliable source? RG (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right its not so I've removed it Syxxpackid420 (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently appears to have several problems. At the beginning, it states that it was used to desribe one band, what does not seem to make a whole genre. The sources that the article cites contradict each other. Pantera does not seem to have any connection with hip-hop and dance music and does not appear to be the same genre as Korn, whose style is described in the source. This also might mislead the reader and cause a confusion with nu metal. The statement about Machine Head shows no evidence of any connecton to groove metal, so it should be clarified or removed.

The sources do not seem to provide basic information about the genre for the infobox. This needs to be corrected. The article in general does not seem to be an encyclopedic summary of its topic, but rather a collection of statements that look like a debate. I would like to ask the editors, who wanted to keep the article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groove metal (3rd nomination), to provide new reliable sources about the topic and sort the problems out.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just so "we" know, do "we" have a deadline to address these purported issues? – B.hotep •talk• 12:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking whether you are giving "us" (notice I keep using these terms because you seem to think it's down to the people who participated in the AfD to rectify things) a deadline. What I'm trying to say is, this article seems to be your raison d'etre at the moment and you only seem to check back to see how the AfD is doing, seeing if you can hurry along its deletion; and now, with the AfD barely cold from its close, you are here to plaster as many tags on it as possible. Of course, you (as with any other editor) are quite entitled to point out shortcomings in an article (maybe that would have been better than a third AfD in the first place?), but please don't be under the illusion that if things aren't sorted to your satisfaction within the hour or next time you log in that you have a case for further action. – B.hotep •talk• 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you don't need to waste your time with describing my behaviour by personal degrading statements like "this article seems to be your raison d'etre". I'm not such an egoist to be offended by this. You just makes youself seem sorry im my eyes because you have the need to tell me such things. Moreover when you're an administator.

To answer your question; yea, i do expect the promoters from the AfD to sort it out. I think that "SNOWBALL-keeping" a misleading stub is neither responsible nor encyclopdic and does not contribute to the readers' knowledge. To point out shortcomings would not be better than an AfD. An AfD can start more activity of the editors.

In the AfD, you said "Two sources is fine for a stub article and there is no actual time limit to completing the article." That might be right, but what it actually means is, that according to you there is no way how to implement the neologism policy. According to that statemt, every neologism has its place on Wikipedia because 2 sources are fine for a stub. But that must be kind of false. Yes, there is no actual time limit to completing the article, but there is also no actual time limit to re-creating an article. That means that everyone can always write the whole article about groove metal when he has the sources, so no actual harm could be done to the article or to Wikipedia by removing it. And also because, in this case, what does a reader miss if he does not read this stub? He won't get confused, that's all.

I do not seem to be in the position of giving any deadlines. There are no deadlines. Everything is revertible on Wikipedia. And you know that. At this moment, the article gives zero information to a reader, rather misleads and confuses a reader. So it seems to be a perfect redirect to heavy metal music. If no editor does anything with it to make it at least seem like a genre, than what else can we do than redirect?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the personal attack in pointing out that, from your contributions from June 4 to present you have only created the AfD, commented on the AfD, tagged this article and added a wishlist on this talk page and little else. Since when is the truth a personal attack? – B.hotep •talk• 14:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

haha :) I wonder what do You expect/want me to answer. Sorry, but i am not interested and don't even belive in truth, so i don't care what you interpret as truth. Again, please try to keep things factual. What relevant is this for groove metal? I am also not mocking You that the truth is that Wikipedia is your raison d'etre obviously far more than mine; so let's leave this ok?

We established in the 3rd AfD (by consensus) that it was not a neologism as you said? I don't remember we established that. I remember that you've said "We disagree". I remeber it was kept because i was the only one to delete it. But i don't remember that anyone added "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept" to the article, which is a criterion for non-neolgisms. So where is the 100% proof that it is not one?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You started an AfD based on this being a neologism. There were people at the AfD who categorically stated it wasn't a neologism. The article was kept, which would seem to suggest that your deletion rationale (it being a neologism) was a bit dodgy. Aside from anything else, the neologism template says "in such a manner as to promote it" – where is your 100% proof that anyone is trying to do this? I'm not going to remove it again, I have no intention of getting into an edit war over it. Quite frankly, I have better things to do than get into a protracted argument over it. – B.hotep •talk• 08:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am glad to hear that. but note that the template also says "This article may document a neologism (...)", so no 100% proof is necessary. it's enough that i argue it is one and no one has disproved me yet. and "in such a manner as to promote it" stands for the existence of the article in it's current form itself. it must not be a certain editor's intent.

concerning the "people at the AfD who categorically stated it wasn't a neologism": the point is that the people, who stated that, had only the bare categorical statement that it's not one, but had no justification for it according to the policy. i argued it's a neologism, because it violates a certain policy that i cited in my latest comment. but the opposers just said "no it's not", but didn't say why and didn't disprove my justification. they just twaddled around about other articles, made-up rules and other unrelated non-relevant things.

the only thing i am asking for are the sources. "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". unless the sources are provided, it always can be a neologism.

i don't get why this should ever get protracted. it's plain and simple. no sources about it = neologism; sources about it = no neologism. provide the sources and i'll shut up.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to understand this. A word isn't a neologism because there are no sources about it - these two concepts are totally unrelated. The guideline exists to govern Wikipedia handling of neologisms. If the word in question is not a neologism then the guideline doesn't apply. It is not the case that "if there are no sources then it must be a neologism" - that is a wildly inaccurate misconception on your part. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would stop ruining these articles and turning them into stubs. Portillo (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]