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. Clear consensus to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deathgrind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

another neologism created by mixing the names of two sub genres of music. Ridernyc (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is fully backed up by reliable sources. There is no single synthesis of sources or original research. Deathgrind is an actual genre with history of about two decades. I'd rather consider deletion of Pornogrind, which is a neologism.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good portion of the sources do not mention death grind at all, the few that do mention it in a passing as a neologism. I can find no source that shows history or development of this as a genre. It's a neologism, plain and simple. Ridernyc (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you actually do have the printed sources (the important ones here) available so that you can assume that they do not "show history or development of this as a genre". The printed references no 1, 2 and 3 in this article are sources that talk "about the term" and not only "use the term" as it is said in WP:NEO. So if you "can find no source (...)", then you should get the printed sources from the article. Then you'll find them.

I am not voting to keep this just for the sake of keeping it. Again, this article is backed up by sources. If it gets deleted anyway, then please at least merge it with Death metal#Subgenres please. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the majority of the articles sources are links to AMG Bio's that list the bands as grindcore, kind of proves my point. The fact that AMG also has no Deathgrind category further proves the point that this a neologism. If you would like to point to sources that show the development and history of this as a genre and not just passing mentions of the neologism please provide them. It's easy to say something is sourced it's another to actually demonstrate how it is sourced. Ridernyc (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why do you tell me to provide the sources, when I told you in my last comment that the article already provides the sources as follows: the reference section of the Deathgrind article: reference No.1, 2 and 3. Those 3 are what I am pointing at. These sources verify the article. I hope you won't tell my to repeat myself once again. I also hope that you are not serious about assuming that the 2 "facts" you mentioned are supposed to prove your point...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the Terrorizer reference states that the term has been around since at least the mid 90s, so it's not clear how WP:NEO would apply. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The first three sources are talking about the subgenre specifically; Terrorizer have clearly devoted an entire article to it and have to rank as an extremely reliable source with respects to extreme metal. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have no problem with it being there. It is thickly sourced and has notable coverage. This is not a rarely used term for just a few bands either; the term is in very active use. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thoroughly sourced. A term that's been around since the '90s and is still in active use is not a neologism. AMG's internal categorization system isn't particularly relevant: they're a general-purpose music site and as such only use the broadest categories. They don't even have a category for baroque music, FWIW. — Gwalla | Talk 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a well-sourced article about a musical genre. Shouldn't be prodded, definitely not deleted. gidonb (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (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.