Talk:So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2015
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2015 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No. 1 Compilation
[edit]As of today, its the ninth week at No. 1 Compilations but the chart has not yet been stored at PANDORA. I have not added it to the article but left it as eight weeks. I may not be able to update this total regularly, so I would ask interested editors to check here for later copies of the ARIA Report (after issue 1316) so that the total may be updated.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Still would like to see actual coverage (i.e. discussion) of the album in significant reliable sources. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of "So Fresh: The Hits of Autumn 2015"
[edit]@Kaimahi:
- Oppose - The album has enough references to support its notability, so I feel that is enough to battle the "proposed" deletion. Secondly, the other "So Fresh" albums only have one reference, which is iTunes. So if this page is going to be nominated for deletion, shouldn't the rest of the "So Fresh" albums be nominated for deletion, also? - ilovechristianmusic (Talk to me!) 10:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- First, I don't believe it does have enough references but what's here only represents a ranking of sales and offers no "significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources". I agree that most of the So Fresh albums should be redirected to So Fresh, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument against deletion. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)