Jump to content

Talk:Benedictum

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

Assertion of deletion

[edit]

In short, why not have the article? The band does exist, they are a proper band in all respects. Their debut album is out, available on amazon, they have their own site, page on myspace, and music can be found on pandora, as well as having received radio play. These are surely reasons enough for the existence of the article. They are a new band, still growing, so a simple short article is not reason enough to delete, and I have added a request for expansion. There are many other articles with little substance or purpose here, including ones about lesser known bands (especially given the time some have existed). Yet these do not get the speedy deletion tag. Ultimately many, many bands could be said to not need a page on wikipeida, to not be significant enough, but the band exists just as much as any other band. I myself searched wikipedia for it because I wanted to know more about them, and found no article, so it is reasonable to assume others may well do the same, searching this site for answers and finding none. What I have provided is some basic information, and more can very easily be added. I can see no harm in the article existing, only potential usefullness, and as such cannot myself see sufficient reason for it's deletion. Prophaniti 18:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]

Good that this article hasn't been deleted. This is a band that looks like it is going somehwere with a couple of major tours coming in 2007. Their debut album has gained numerous strong reviews worldwide and they are garnering a fairly decent sized fan base. For a new band they also have strong support from Craig Goldie of Dio and have started to get a number of invitations to major rock/metal festivals including inernational ones.

Fair use rationale for Image:Benedictum Logo.png

[edit]

Image:Benedictum Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable website

[edit]

Blabbermouth.net has the following disclaimer:

"BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees."

Per WP:RS, sources must come from a place that checks for accuracy most of the time. What blabbermouth seems to be saying is that its material is not checked for accuracy. Therefore, I believe it fails the requirements and needs to be replaced with more reliable sources. Phearson (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement shown above does not, as Phearson has assumed, mean that the site does not verify its material. It is a legal disclaimer required by most, if not all, labels when articles are written without the LABEL's PR department checking them over before publication. IOW, it's the kind of disclaimer that an "unauthorized biography" would have. This doesn't mean it's unreliable, it means it's free from the label's marketing spin. Blackfyr (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought on the disclaimer: Since the act under discussion is not signed with Roadrunner records, it looks as if the people running this blog are, or have been, employees of, or otherwise with, Roadrunner Records and RR wanted it made clear that this was not something the record label was doing or saying. This also is a valid interpretation of the disclaimer. There is, however, no way the disclaimer could be read as meaning the articles were not researched and/or verified, save by dint of either a deliberate misinterpretation or a misunderstanding of basic English. Blackfyr (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having now gone back and read every reference to Blabbermouth.net in the above referenced discussion, in particular the reference to it at this citation point [2], it is clear that they have indeed been discussed and have been accepted as a reliable source. As this was the sole site mentioned as 'unreliable', I will be removing the notice from the main article. Blackfyr (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll accept that. However, in your edit summery, be more specific as to why you removed the PROD. Just saying that it has received "Universal Praise" makes me think otherwise. Going to have to ride out the AfD. Sorry for the ruckus. Phearson (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


At the time I had written that comment, I had just received the album (Dominion) 2 days before its official release, had not run across the band before and was running off the (very) few reviews of the album that I was able to locate at that time (all 4 of them) and all of them liked the album. Since the official release of the album, other reviews have come out with more variable results. However, I have to say that your attempt at deletion immediately after the posting of the initial information seemed a little precipitate. Blackfyr (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Benedictum. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Benedictum. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benedictum&oldid=1257144931"