User talk:Surat123

Welcome!

 * }

RE: First-party sources for new In Flames album
I removed the extra sources for several reasons:

Fezmar9 (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Before the introduction of the Blabbermouth source, Sounds of a Playground Fading was entirely sourced by first-party websites, and some girl named Kim who blogs. Blabbermouth was the first source that's both published and third-party, which is the preferred type of source. In fact, the other sources should also be replaced at some point.
 * It's true that websites sometimes disappear. It can happen to any website at anytime. However, in my experience it's the first-party sources that don't last long. Band websites are typically wiped clean before each release to promote the new album. Blabbermouth's archives are well maintained, and thus I have a much stronger reason to believe the Blabbermouth article will still be there in a year than I do for Century Media's posting. A perfect example for this would be Koch Records, In Flames previous US record label. They changed their name to E1 and ALL old news posts were thrown out.
 * I don't see a reason to post three sources when one will do just fine. Multiple citations are typically used when a claim is controversial and requires support from multiple sources. These release dates are not controversial.
 * First-party sources (in relation to music and albums) also have the tendency to be rather promotional. Wikipedians are not here to advance the sale of albums, just present the facts in neutral manner.


 * Additionally, third-party sources also help establish subject notability. This article was proposed for deletion twice, and for good reason. If the only sources providing information on this topic are the band's Facebook and the record label, then the article may not meet the general notability guideline. For upcoming album articles, the typical course of action in this event is to redirect the article to the artist's page until said notability can be established—which is usually much closer to the release date. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, that makes sense, thanks for the clarification and explanation. Surat123 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)