Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980s retro movement (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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] 1980s retro movement

This article was first nominated for deletion in June, and the AfD was closed as a "keep but cleanup". However, in the three months since, not only has it not been cleaned up, it's gotten much worse (see diff). Basically, the article is a gigantic WP:OR violation; there is no inherent evidence that society is in the midst of any "1980s retro movement" whatsoever, nor does the article even attempt to assert this as a fact. (There's been a cite tag on the first sentence of the article since the end of the first AfD; we're still waiting for that cite.) Most of the single-line "events" listed in the article are uncited, and many of them strain credulity past the breaking point (Desperate Housewives is reminiscent of Dynasty? In what ways? Because they're both an hour long and both are/were on ABC? Are you kidding me?) In addition, the entire article is America-centric, without admitting it. And on top of everything else, the article has a name that almost nobody will come to Wikipedia and search for in the first place. As this AfD is certain to get a number of blind "keep" votes from those with a strong personal interest in the page's survival, I strongly urge the closing admin to examine the article itself and the discussion here; please don't just count votes on this one. --Aaron 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP: The 1980s Retro Movement is part of the Twenty Year Rule. Much like the '70s were retro in the '90s and the '60s retro in the '80s. Those who don't see boomerang fads surely don't get out much and probrobly spend all day deleting good articles on wikipedia. Good day! (Tigerghost 18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC))
    • Comment: sorry for my previous statements Aaron...however if u charge this for Original research then why aren't the trivia sections on pages of television or movie articles up for deletion, they seem like Original Research. Or what about the 2006 in fiction section on the 2006 year article, aren't they original research. That is all I have to say. This is not a personal attack! All of the things on this article have had the creditablity of being aired on television or a movie, just like a TV show's trivia or a year in fiction section. (Tigerghost 23:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC))
    • Note to closing admin: Twenty Year Rule is also currently up for AfD. --Aaron 18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - cramed to the shoulder-pads with gratuitous, cherry-picked original research. Impossible to even begin to cover it here - just see for yourself.--Nydas 18:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as article is unverified, original research and I think it is safe to say that if it didn't get fixed after the last AfD the chances it will get fixed in the future are slim.--Isotope23 18:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain, with the note that this is better handled by a category. --63.64.30.2 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - above vote from 63.64.30.2 belongs to me. Don't know why it dropped the login.... --Dennisthe2 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to List of 1980s nostalgia in popular culture or keep. This article is really a list, ad doesn't seem like a particularly bad idea for one either. Nom is right that the list doesn't prove there is a "movement" or anything, and with the current title there are OR issues, but as a list, it just needs some basic editing. I volunteer to edit the list down to very clear examples if it is kept (whether or not it is moved). Mangojuicetalk 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable matter of opinion and, in a way, original research. I think it would be pretty easy to compile a list of things that make it look like there's currently a "retro movement" for any decade. Really, how can there not be a 70s retro movement now, what with the New York Dolls having recently released a new album and Paul Simon out on the road plugging his new work (or would that be the current 60s retro movement?). Agent 86 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Follow up: As embarrassed as I am to admit that I was "reading" the Vancouver Province, today they printed an article about Audrey Hepburn and how there's a big trend these days with fashion and pop culture emulating her (including the current GAP ad campaign built up around her). As a part of that, the article quoted someone in the local fashion industry as saying that Audrey's big right now because there is a big 50s revival going on. It just brings home the point that it's pretty easy to say that there's a particular pop-culture movement on at any time. Agent 86 23:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but just barely. I personally believe 80s retro is a definite trend, and a quick Google search for "1980s retro" suggests I'm not alone in that perception. As those proposing deletion have (rightly) pointed to the lack of citations, I will mention that one of the sources turned up by that brief search included a BBC News article[1]. It would obviously be preferable to have citations to some scholarly sources. It seems entirely correct however to suggest that the current "article" is really a list, and if kept it needs to be either massively overhauled or moved to an alternative title, with a number of the examples either cited or deleted. --Matthew Humphreys 20:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Weak Delete. My position is similar to that on the deletion of the 1970s retro movement, there could probably be a good article on this topic, but this isn't the one. Some verifiable prose on the movement in general coupled with a shorter list of examples and a category for other examples would go a long way toward improving this. But, per the nomination, if no one has cleaned it up since the last AfD, why would they do so now? So, unless someone comes forward and either greatly improves this article or volunteers to do so in a reasonable amount of time, I think Wikipedia will be better off without it. Cool3 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This article can easily be cited. A simple google search reveals a number of sources [2]Chubdub 19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, like a dead link to a non-existant tripod site? Sorry, that doesn't quite meet WP:RS.--Isotope23 16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ResponseNot sure how good a source it is but the site does exist - there was a problem with the link, which I have now fixed.--Matthew Humphreys 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it's easier to mull over external info that I can actually see...--Isotope23 18:08, 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.