Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twenty Year Rule

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty Year Rule

Does not meet WP:V -Nv8200p talk 15:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless sourced. Possible but unlikely that one of those worthless "cultural commentators" could have coined this expression. David | Talk 16:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ah, but they have. E.g., via Lexis-Nexis, Michael O'Rourke, "I'll love the '90s, but not just yet," San Antonio Express-News, July 17, 2004: "...It is the 20-year rule. It takes a good 20 years to get a feeling of nostalgia....When I was a kid in the 1970s everybody was nostalgic for the 1950s. "Happy Days" was the No. 1 show on television...". Or, Omaha World-Herald editorial, Nov. 18, 2005: "There's something of a 20-year rule in pop culture -- whatever was new 20 years ago is the retro fad of today." Or, Sacha Orenstein, "The secret to the music biz (the 20 year rule)". Pan Dan 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Notwithstanding my above comment, delete, unless more notable sources can be found. Pan Dan 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as this appears to be a one-off neologism.--Isotope23 16:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. --Aaron 18:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Rule? More like an unverifiable theory. Correlation is not proof of anything. There are dozens of other trends at any given time that can harken back to a decade other than the one twenty years ago. This is the dressing up of an opinion based on coincidence that has no real encyclopedic value. Agent 86 19:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I would love to keep this, I've heard of the term, but I just couldn't find any reliable sources that even use it, let alone discuss the phenomenon, in either Google or Google Book searches. There is, however, a twenty year rule in law that comes up lots and lots, apparently relating to patents, so perhaps that could serve as a replacement for this once it's deleted. Oh, and by the way, there's a very natural explanation for this: young adults nostalgic for their childhoods... when you're 28, you remember being 8 fondly... Mangojuice^talk 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Mangojuuice, this term could be useful, but we have to be careful about neologisms. Thus, the article has to be better verified. -- danntm ^T _C 23:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP: It states its a theory so get off it. Have any of you heard of the term "Nostalgia". You are attacking a strong part of Pop Culture here with both the 80s retro movement and this article. Both show evidence of existance, so why delete these articles. (Tigerghost 23:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

A widely accepted and discussed theory is OK. This theory has a ways to go. -Nv8200p talk

Excellent idea. If the article isn't deleted (which it should be), then it should be merged into nostalgia. Agent 86 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to some other article, for example, as mentioned above, nostalgia. This theory does seem to make sense; however, it shouldn't deserve its own article. --FlyingPenguins 04:14, 3 October 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.