Talk:Blood for Blood

"Was" a band, or "is" a band?

Does this mean that Blood for Blood has split up and does not exist anymore? 89.77.118.185 (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They broke up for a while, but are now back together and touring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.241.9 (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Discography

I am so considering, not adding anything else to wikipedia, after working on this page, it shows me how stupidly difficult it is to add to wiki, I am helping out but all these auto-mated bots and people who think they know everything make it so hard for some to add something positive to an article, I worked for hours on this article just for a string of users to come along and revert it before even looking at what changes I have made to improve the article.

I am not sure which edits you are referring to, but there was the blanking when you were trying to move it that was misidentified by an automated bot. Because blanking is usually vandalism, the bot automatically assumes any blanking is vandalism and reverts all the recent edits by that user. Please add back anything that was accidentally deleted by that. —Centrx→talk • 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph needs citation 67.62.216.54 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd

While the article needs work, it should by no means be deleted. Blood for Blood are highly notable, and whomever decided it was a good idea to start a deletion thread was a poor excuse for a music enthusiast, and highly ignorant to the scene and its history.

As I said, needs work does not equal needs to be deleted.

Questioning the notability of this band is beyond insane. Blood for Blood has sold more albums than bands like H2O, Madball, and Agnostic Front (all which are major bands and have wiki pages)

This shouldn't even be up for debate. 150.108.232.32 23:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that User:TedFrank also started the deletion thread for Ramallah (Band) (now deleted) for the same (apparently politically/personally motivated) reasons.Dean Sayers 07:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The motivation is WP:N. See Template:pnc. -- THF 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blood for Blood aren't worthy enough for note?? Thats absolutely crazy! I don't know the majority of Country, Hip Hop, Classical acts, but that doesn't make them not worth of note - they still sell records to people i don't know - "worthy of note" is entirely subjective.

While the article needs some serious work, the idea that Blood for Blood is not notable enough is just silly. 71.221.89.197 09:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)SB

I agree -- whoever said Blood for Blood isn't notable is ridiculous. They may not be notable to YOU, but in the hardcore community, as well as other underground music communities, Blood for Blood is well known and very well perceived. The initial paragraph that "reads like an advertisement" is probably there because no other "CITED" material is available via the internet, thus allowing the ever so "intelligent", and i say that with all the sarcasm in the world, wikipedia editors to delete it. Therefore, it should be their duty to edit it so that it meets their criteria, because god forbid if one browsing the internet fixes the first paragraph, it probably won't meet wiki standards, causing the whole page to be removed.

Noteworthiness is an opinion, so doesn't that constitute as being subjective under wiki's standards? Hypocritical!

ive no clue how to edit or anything else, but if you need a bookmark to verify the content heres one..."Blood For Blood is the enemy of all that you hold dear.", says guitar player Rob Lind, "I been held down my whole life. This band is my opportunity to spit in society's face and tell mankind and the whole world "fuck you". Anyone who has ever felt full of anger and hatred towards the world around them should be able to relate to Blood For Blood." Inspired by bands such as Sheer Terror, Breakdown, Carnivore and Raw Deal, Blood For Blood formed as a reaction to the existing heavy music scene in Boston back in 1995.

Since then Blood for Blood has released many cds, played many shows, but the song remains the same... friends and booze are the only two constants in life." that is taken from http://www.pahardcore.com/bands/bands.cfm?id=2 hope it saves the article, cuz b4b kicks serious ass Mental Elf 03:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This band is painted as being progressive. I'm not sure that's true. They had a song which goes "we need capital punishment," then talks about how justice for murder must be swift and final.

B4B is worth an article on Wiki! Greeting from Germany -- 89.56.61.51 (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly a huge Blood for Blood fan but the fact that this article is in danger of being removed is laughable. If Blood for Blood isn't considered notable you might as well just delete hardcore and every reference to it from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.95.53 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Still Active?

The page lists blood for Blood as an active band, but they've been on hiatus since 2004. I'm changing the status until someone can provide proof to the contrary.

216.106.228.109 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Playing on the European Persistence 10 Tour in December —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.220.222 (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blood for 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701170853/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/Blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=141851 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=141851

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: 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) 01:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)