Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil War (album)
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 http://www.fatwreck.com/record/discography and a couple hundred releases including albums by such notable acts as Against Me!, Rise Against, NOFX, Rancid (band)|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 (http://www.punknews.org/article/30127, http://www.punknews.org/article/30453, http://altpress.com/apmag/20080901.htm this month's issue of ''Alternative Press (music magazine)|Alternative Press''). The tracklisting has been confirmed via the band's website http://www.angelfire.com/mn/dillingerfour/releases.html (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 http://www.fatwreck.com/record/detail/718 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...http://www.interpunk.com/item.cfm?Item=161302& 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:http://altpress.com/news/4555.htm http://altpress.com/news/1584.htm http://altpress.com/news/1503.htm http://altpress.com/news/1109.htm. 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 {{refimprove}} 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. #Albums 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
— User:IllaZilla, 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:MUSIC (Wikipedia:Notability)