Talk:A Sorcery Written in Blood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

This album is a demo. Per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS it is not notable without "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". Several "sources" were just added. However, they are blogs and open source (wiki-like) projects, not reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • IMO, this demo is notable and should have its own article, as it is an important first release by a now well-known band. This demo was very well-received when it came out, and led to the band getting signed on a record label, which was a fairly significant achievement for a band back then, unlike now, when every band seems to get signed, seemingly regardless of quality. There was a lot of "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" when the demo was released back in 1993, only this cannot be found on the internet, as this was before the internet was in such a widespread use as it is today. Unless someone decides to scan all the reviews of the demo and the interviews with the band from that time, it is doubtful that any other "reliable sources" will be available as references for the article. IMO, this should not mean that the release is not worthy of an article. Bulgakoff (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need not be online, but they do need to be cited. At present, they are not. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new reference to the demo (in Norwegian), quoting a front page story about the demo from 1994 in the newspaper Firda www.firda.no , the major newspaper in Sogn og Fjordane in Norway. Bulgakoff (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I think this should be merged with Pentagram (Gorgoroth album) the same way Promo '94 was. Demos are non-notable, but having a couple references (after I cleaned out all the unreliable sources and sources that didn't say what the info in the article does) should make it notable enough to be merged. I'm hoping we can all come to a consensus that this is a good plan, but if not we can nominate it for AFD and go from there. Thoughts? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has already been a consensus to keep it: See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Sorcery_Written_in_Blood Bulgakoff (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see that. Thanks for the link. Suggestion withdrawn. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A Sorcery Written in Blood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Sorcery_Written_in_Blood&oldid=1197189509"