Talk:Shred metal

message: There is no such thing as "shred metal." There is shred, and metal. Metal guitarists often shred, and shredders often play metal, but there is no "shred metal."
agreed
Exactly. WTF is this page?
I also agree with that. There's no such thing as "shred metal". Hell, the article can only list 7 artists anyway, not enough to qualify a genre without significant external source evidence.
Since there are now what looks like 4 people saying the page should not exist, and no defenders, I'll officially suggest it be deleted. If no solid arguments appear here within the next few days/week, I'll go ahead. Prophaniti 16:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already discussed this article with admin Wiki alf as I believed it was ripe for a second nomination. Nothing has been done since it's first nom to try and improve it. It's still a "make believe" genre. I would vote to replace the AfD box and it go through a second round. 156.34.218.199 10:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless some reliable sources come along, I can't see a reason why it shouldn't just be a redirect to Shred guitar.--Alf melmac 10:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. My only thought there is that Shred guitar is equally bad when it comes to original research and is a magnet for POV pushers and poetic "virtuoso" dealers. Virtuoso, as an adjective, is one of the ugliest and most inappropriately used words on Wikipedia and should be banned. 156.34.142.110 12:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume that the fact that Dan Bukspans book "The Encyclopaedia of Heavy Metal" having shred metal as a genre in its genre section, and being mentioned frequently throuhout the book is ging to be ignored? 210.84.39.29 09:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (note: I realise this is a long part, please read all of it before discussing further) Well until someone mentions it and actually uses it to improve the article, yes, it is going to be ignored. Because evidently people aren't aware of it. If this book really does talk about shred metal, then use it to better the article, don't just come here and whine on the discussion page. However, even this book simply mentioning "shred metal" doesn't necessarily warrant the existence of this article. Mainly because we have two kinds of reason for backing up an article, as I see it: quality opinion and quantity opinion. Quantity opinion is general consensus, what most people say. Quality opinion is what someone with greater authority says, such as a professor talking about his area of study. In such a case, quality can outweigh quantity. However, there is no such authority with this particular topic. There is no "professor of metal" as far as I'm aware, and something being printed in a single book doesn't necessarily have any more impact or weight than one person on here saying one thing or another. If this book does make reference to shred metal, then use it to improve the article, and that may in itself show the use of the book. What I mean is, put in what the book says. Part of my complaint about this article is not just that I haven't heard of shred metal, but that the article itself is so barren. It tells almost nothing about what this brand of metal is, what defines it, and it can list a negligible 7 artists. So, if this book you mention does talk about shred metal, what does it say? Put that in here so that we might have an article that actually tells you something. Because if you can come up with an adequate definition of "shred metal", and a good selection of artists that fit in there, I'm perfectly willing to accept it's existence. But right now, there is no need for the term "shred metal", because there's no music that doesn't fit perfectly into other, more widely acknowledged genres. Prophaniti 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled