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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There is no such genre as "technical metal". Some seem to be confusing a quality or trait of music with a true genre. As Leon Sword rightly said, any metal genre can be considered "technical": For thrash metal we have Artillery and Coroner; for power metal we have Symphony X or Wuthering Heights; for sludge metal we have Mastodon; for death metal we have Atheist; for progressive metal we have Dream Theater, and so on. Any subgenre can be technical. Technicality is not a genre, it is just a single quality that can apply to any real genre and says nothing about the music other than "It's technical". In addition to this, it is not a "genre" I have seen used or verified anywhere at all (note: it's used as a term, but not a genre). It has no logical reality, and no sources to back it up. A google search for the term turns up 97,500 hits, less than half that of "Battle metal". There is no good reason for this to exist as an article, it is quite simply and quite obviously just something someone has made up, as the lack of any source attests. Prophaniti (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, no references to suggest that this is a style in its own right. Many of the g-hits have no bearing on the specific issue of whether "technical metal" is a legitimate genre. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the watchtower one claims it's a genre. Nevertheless, one stray reference does not a genre make. I agree this is going a bit overboard and cobbling together a genre out of a few stray uses of the term "technical metal". it would really need a lot more than the current referencing to make a convincing argument that this really is a genre of metal. The nom says it well, this seems to be confusing a "quality or trait of music with a true genre". --Rividian (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another fairy-tale genre that Wikipedia doesn't need. Article was already a re-direct to Progressive metal. Either delete it ror re-direct it and lock it from being re-created. Libs (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is another random adjective + metal. But it should not be deleted. It should be redircted either to Fabrication (metal) or Heavy metal music.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it would come out with much the same result, as what I (and I believe most) are arguing for is that the article and it's (flimsy) content be removed. A redirct to an existing page would still remove what's on the "technical metal" page. Prophaniti (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fair Deal (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2008 (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.