Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970s retro movement

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 no consensus. W.marsh 15:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1970s retro movement

This is decadecruft (I'm nominating this and 1980s retro movement at the same time), that violates WP:OR, WP:V, WP:WEASEL and WP:NOT. It's just an uncited list of 70s-themed movies and TV shows with a few random bits of pop culture trivia tacked on to the bottom. It's so bad it makes the horrible 1980s retro movement mess look like a featured article candidate. Aaron 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an incomplete article on a valid topic. I know, it's not encouraging that the 1980s retro movement article hasn't improved, but I think there's ample evidence that this one really happened. The period in which the retro movement occurred is over, so at least now this article isn't covering current events. I don't even see the need for a cleanup tag, particularly; just mark it as a stub. Also, this article hasn't been subject to the same attempt to have it improved that the 80s one has. Mangojuice^talk 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain, with the note that this would be better handled by a category. --Dennisthe2 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for same reasons I gave in the AfDs for Twenty Year Rule and 1980s retro movement. Agent 86 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RickReinckens 04:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hardly even an article, the opening section of prose needs references and the rest is a list. As per Dennisthe2, the list would be better handled by Category:1970s retro movement (which has been around for a couple of months). I think the 1970s retro movement could serve as the topic for a good article, but this isn't that article. A complete rewrite complete with some citations would convince me to change my vote, though. Cool3 18:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Strong STrong Keep - For reason of Mango. The article is clearly a stub and need major work. Nevertheless, it is still a valid topic, and a simple google search can verify it Chubdub 19:38, 2 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.