Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil War (album)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Withdrawn by nominator. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Civil War (album)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

as-yet unreleased non-notable album also a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The title and track list are on the band's discography page and a release date was announced on the label's page, meaning it passes WP:MUSIC. Per WP:MUSIC, "Once the artist or their record label has publicly confirmed the title, track listing and release date, an article about the album is not a WP:CRYSTAL violation". Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the references prove verifiability, they don't provide notability per WP:MUSIC. Even assuming the release date has passed, it still won't pass WP:MUSIC#Albums because it doesn't have references that "include independent coverage".    Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The current content is verified, and notability is highly likely to be established once the release date passes, as reviews will undoubtedly become available (sources of reviews including punknews.org and Alternative Press, for example, have been making news posts following the progress of this album and will publish reviews of it). WP:MUSIC does in fact allow for articles about upcoming albums, as Wyatt points out, as long as the content is verifiable (hence the guideline "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the tag."...heck, hence the existence of the  tag in the first place. Case in point: Chinese Democracy). This article meets those criteria and has sufficient references to verify its current content. I think we can AGF that the independent coverage will arrive shortly in the form of reviews, etc., as is the case for most albums being released in the near future. There is, quite simply, no strong reason to delete and plenty of reasons to keep. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, I would like to add that this article is only 2 days old, and is clearly not a hoax, cruft, or copyvio, and therefore we should give it a chance to develop. It has just as much chance of developing into a good album article as any of the other 500 or so articles currently using the template. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Any album can miss its expected release date: the band could break up, the company could go bust, or they could decide at the last minute that they hate it and decide not to release it after all.  The track listing isn't on the site (contrary to Wyatt Riot's indication, the track listing was not announced; only a release date), and we only have one site.  Notability needs to be established with more than one source.  The point of WP:CRYSTAL is that we don't assume what might happen; we only document what has already happened.  The exception to this is scheduled events such as the Olympics, or an election.  And even then, we don't necesary prepare too many aspects of those future events, as there are variables.   Moreover, the label, Fat Wreck Records is barely notable, as opposed to Warner Music or similar well established company, so their announcements might hold less weight.  This site Wyatt Riot  quoted was a personal web page -- not a reliable source of information -- and listed this album as being released in 2003.  What???  And this is NOT this article's first life.  It was previously prodded under the name Civil War (Dillinger Four album). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 11:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternate proposal. says, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." If this survives AfD, and/or the album is definitely released, then it should be merged into the band article, unless it hits any known charts, and/or generates any significant reviews. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As someone with knowledge of the subject, I'd like to counter a few of your statements above (I don't know all that much about Dillinger Four, but I know a lot about their record label). Fat Wreck Chords is, in fact, a notable independent record label, on more or less the same level as Epitaph Records or Vagrant Records. While I'll grant you that the Fat Wreck Chords article itself needs improvement, I assure you that this is not some tiny record label operating out of someone's garage. It is a significant independent record label that has been in operation for 18 years, has a roster of notable artists and a couple hundred releases including albums by such notable acts as Against Me!, Rise Against, NOFX, Rancid, MXPX, and Less Than Jake. Nor is Dillinger Four a tiny, non-notable band with no other releases. This will in fact be their sixth album. It is highly unlikely that "the band could break up, the company could go bust, or they could decide at the last minute that they hate it and decide not to release it after all." As I've said, significant independent third-party sources have been covering this album's development (,, this month's issue of Alternative Press). The tracklisting has been confirmed via the band's website (yes, the release date listed is incorrect...you can see by scrolling down to the previous release with the identical date that this is an obvious mistake; however the record label has given us the correct release date; putting these 2 sources together we have clearly verified details about the album from primary sources). Oh, never mind...here's a third-party source giving us all we need: release date, track listing, album art...and a touch of critical commentary! Doing a little more searching, here are a few online AP articles that could be used as sources to discuss the album's development and how it was pushed back over several years:   . I think this is clearly enough source material to support the article until the album gets released and the reviews start coming in. I'm going to go ahead and add these sources to the article along with a discussion of the album's development. In the future, may I suggest tagging new articles that are clearly not speedy candidates with  or a similar such template, rather than jumping straight to AfD? As you can see it was relatively simple to show that this was not a CRYSTAL violation, and notability, while it can be challenged, is not in and of itself a sufficient reason to bring a 2-day-old article to AfD when it is clearly a good faith article with a high possibility of improvement in the very near future. WP:MUSIC says rather clearly that even upcoming albums may be notable enough for articles if the artist is notable, so long as there are confirmed details and independent coverage. I'm not a fan of inherited notability myself, but I believe we have both confirmed details and independent coverage now, so I believe the proposed reasons for deletion are now void. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Add all of the references you've cited above and I'll withdraw this AfD.  Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.