This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Metal, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Black MetalWikipedia:WikiProject Black MetalTemplate:WikiProject Black MetalBlack Metal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles
Something along the lines of "they convert as many as possible to Satanism". It's being discussed on the official Gorgoroth forums. This talk page however is not supposed to be one. Dark Prime (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:notability (music) "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The sources are a blog, a fansite, and blabbermouth.net which I don't think qualifies as a reliable source. I think ref improve would be a better tag, as the band seems notable, and something in the intro to explain to those unfamiliar with this type of music as to why it is important. Rather than removing the tag and then posting a comment, it might be better to address the tag and then remove it. I don't mind, but other editors do. By the way, your article is much better than most of the album articles I see on the new page list. I will copy this to the talk page. Dethlock99 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As trashy as much of the reception/comments on blabbermouth.net are, it's pretty much the place where everything relating to hard rock and heavy metal becomes official nowadays, and from what I've seen it's much more objective than any other website. I may include the official website (the blog belongs to guitarist Infernus btw), but what other sorts of sources would you recommend? I am considering doing a bit of a rewrite with the information I added into the relevant section of the band's article. Dark Prime (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether the fact that it leaked should be mentioned on the page: "At the end of September 2009, a full three weeks before the album's official European release date, the entire album was leaked onto the internet by an unknown source.[24]". According to WP:LEAK, "The date an album was leaked onto the Internet is not notable unless it results in some other action that is notable, such as being directly responded to by the musical artist or their management, or the leak itself receiving broad media coverage. Do not add leak dates to articles unless a notable consequence of the leak can be properly sourced to the same regular, reliable media sources that would be expected for any other content in the album's article." While this is properly sourced, it doesn't seem to have had any consequences (eg. the band making a big stink about it (Infernus didn't seem to care: [1]), or pushing the release date up (which didn't happen)). I propose that this sentence be removed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the newspaper article I used as a source is a big enough consequence of the leak. It's not often that a newspaper chooses to run a whole story about an album being leaked (at least not in Norway), and the fact that the leak is also mentioned by the interviewer in the Infernal Masquerade interview that you provide a link to shows further coverage by the media. Therefore, in my opinion, the sentence about the leak should not be removed, but instead remain included in the article. Bulgakoff (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 mentions (one of which had to be prompted by an interviewer) does not really constitute "broad media coverage", and just being mentioned in a newspaper isn't a consequence on its own (WP:LEAK makes specific mention of it being responded to by the band or their management, such as St. Anger being released a few days early due to the album being leaked). This was an inconsequential leak, and really doesn't belong in the article. Can you find more media coverage, or an obvious response to the leak (specifically to the leak, not to an interviewer's question) that would fulfill WP:LEAK? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any other sources or media coverage, and the band obviously chose not to go out with an official statement, so I have no other response to the leak either, so I will therefore remove the sentence from the article. I thought the issue would be relevant to the article, since it was covered in the BT newspaper article, but I did not know about the WP:LEAK criteria at the time. Bulgakoff (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
