Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call Music! 21 (U.S. series)


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! 21 (U.S. series)
Has been proposed for deletion several times, it seems to be back at the top of the log yet again now. Original reason for PROD still stands-- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hynca-Hooley 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Crystalballism, all pure speculation, just the authors favourite songs. -- light darkness (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Oh dear god, we have all the others. I fear for civilization.  &middot; rodii  &middot;  01:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not a crystal ball. Ziggurat 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Total crystal-ballism. Cnwb 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think the fact that the article itself states, "this is a prediction list," is ... yeah. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 03:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Schizombie 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know if this is of any use, but Amazon has the album cover on it's site. May it be worth just altering this page to the artists featured on the cover?
 * Delete per nom. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (*), albeit with only known facts included, and *totally* rewritten. It has a projected release date, and cover. Whilst this in itself isn't enough to justify keeping it, the thing'll be released very soon- at which point someone will probably make it a proper article. Hardly seems worth deleting (and possibly dealing with the problem again). Fourohfour 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (*) Comment: NB This assumes that Now! albums are individually notable. I wasn't convinced of this personally; however, since my attempts to get concensus via both Wikiproject albums *and* an RfC didn't attract sufficient interest, and since the number of (and work done on) articles has grown quite a lot since then, it seems that the time for objection has passed. Fourohfour 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I was the one who originally tried to PROD this, original reason still stands. Petros471 22:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:36, 6 March 2006 (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.