Talk:Heaven and Hell (Black Sabbath song)

Fair use rationale for Image:BlackSabbathHeavenAndHell.jpg
Image:BlackSabbathHeavenAndHell.jpg 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 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 14:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SabbathHeaven.jpg
Image:SabbathHeaven.jpg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 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 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge
This is merged back into Heaven and Hell (Black Sabbath album). This article was getting pretty big as stubs go, but most of this info belonged to the album article rather than the song. Articles aren't really needed for each song &mdash; one good album article is beats ten song stubs. / edg ☺ ★ 22:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Rock band Motion Device
There's a disagreement about their nobility with this edit. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 18:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not all that familiar with how I go about making these contributions, so I hope I'm putting this in correctly. I checked carefully the guidance on "notability" as regards bands and musicians, and Motion Device meet the criteria in a number of ways. They have been featured on National Television on CTV's Canada AM on Tuesday, August 21st 2012. This in in addition to regional and local coverage. They have had a number of articles published about them (not just gig dates or adverts), in Guitar World (05/2014), The Toronto Sun (02/2015), Chicago Live Music Examiner (02/2015), Revolver (08/2014), And by a large number of internet only sites and radio station pages. So much for the items specified in the official Wikipedia criteria, and the case for Motion Device being included as at least a mention on well-known songs they have covered. In addition to those, they have also been hailed and are being followed by some very big names in the world of rock music - to name a few, Zak Wylde, Alice Cooper, Nikki Sixx, Dee Snider, Steve Vai, Jim Cherry, Jason Bonham, Marty Friedman, and I could go on for a couple more lines. These are just ones who've made public statements - others have been and are following them quite closely, but have not made any public statements, so I have not used their names. I don't think that kind of attention can be completely dismissed, even if it is not easily quantifiable. There is also the not unreasonable point that despite the current listing on "major labels", by far the largest publishers of music, worldwide, and however you measure it, are all on-line, none of which have been mentioned in that listing at all. This brings me to a major point. I believe that by the reference to "Major Labels" Wikipedia criteria are failing to take account of the huge way in which music distribution has been, and still is, changing. More people are now sourcing their music on-line instead of by buying physical media, and this is moving sales away from the traditional major labels and towards smaller independent labels and even self-published material. Internet radio stations are playing a lot of this type of material, and outside the "pop" genre favoured by the large entertainment groups, internet radio has become the most common way for fans to listen to music that suits their taste and discover other bands who they enjoy listening to. Looking through articles on individual songs, there are many instances of covers being mentioned from smaller or newer bands who do not have their own page, some of whom may never have. Indeed, the number of different artists to have covered a song is some measure of it's influence and significance in itself, so is of some value in determining whether a song deserves a page of it's own, or should be covered within that of an album or band. Some of these even refer to a cover being sung at a single concert - hardly a major audience, compared to the number (millions) listening to a successful Youtube cover. I do believe that consistency is important, so if these kind of mentions (and they are no more than that) are made, they should be either across the board, or not at all. To gain that consistency, I believe there is a strong case to be made for there being two levels of "notability", and that a lower standard should be available for bands that only rate a mention as having played or covered a particular song, with a higher standard (similar to the existing one - although I'd add a requirement or at least weighting for original material - but making allowance for 21st century music distribution methods) for a band to rate a page of their own (Once someone with the time and skills is sufficiently bothered to write one, of course - which itself provides some level of minimal notability). The lower level of notability would allow for things like recognition by other artists who are notable in their own right, plays on internet radio, popularity on social media, etc. I feel this is a reasonable arrangement which avoids preferential treatment of corporate sponsored bands, would allow mentions of bands even where they don't rate their own page, gives recognition for originality as well as performance, and gives a consistency that seems to be lacking at present (although that may simply be differing level of rigour in applying the standards, which may be inevitable whatever standards apply). PhilLee2802 (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel that they're easily notable then I suggest you create an article about them, then there won't be any problem restoring your claim here.  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 01:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)