Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2008


 * 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 delete. I believe itʻs getting a bit wintry here...  Singu larity  22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2008

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is not referenced, no idea if it's just someone's random guess or if it's based in fact. Kei lana  01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - guesses based on prior behavior of label; hedged about with "probably" and the like. Bad enough we've got all these non-notable future albums pouring in, without guesswork like this! -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I've said it before, Wikipedia isn't going to disappear anytime soon, so you can chill out and wait until there's actually some valid info available. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously WP:CRYSTAL.   Happy Holidays!!  Malinaccier (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So Speedily Deleted: The Hits of Wikipedia is Not a Crystal Ball Mr Senseless (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, also all of these songs were hits in the Fall of 2007...Now why would they be featured on something like this. I think that this also fails WP:MADEUP and WP:HOAX Doc Strange (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - no, apparently this label issues nostalgia albums for the "remember the pop hits we loved last year, when we were mere children of 16" market, a few times a year. The problem is that the creator of the article is guessing what's gonna be on the latest installment, based on what's popular on that label now. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  19:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per nom. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. It doesn't actually meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but we could still snowball delete.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 16:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Snowball. It's almost irrelevent to vote, but this is almost certain to end up a snowball arguement. This is complete crystal-ballery and nothing else. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2007 (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.