Wiki143:Articles for deletion/1980s 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 of the debate was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1980s retro movement

While I don't debate the existance of '80s retro, this article as written is completely original research. cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep the article. Let's at least have a crack at editing it into an acceptable form first. Besides which I'm not sure I class much of it as research, it's more a list of easily verifiable examples that back up the existence of 80s retro. --Matthew Humphreys 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of information. As I said, I don't doubt that '80s retro exists. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Response to Comment - I didn't say the article is perfect as it is, I was disputing your categorisation of it as "research". My main point is that just because a given article doesn't currently conform to Wikipedia standards, that doesn't automatically mean it ought to be deleted. If these types of concerns are raised about a specific article, those interested in the topic should work to bring it up to scratch, rather than simply deleting. There is potential here for a good article, though it needs a bit of work (if there wasn't, I would wholeheartedly support deletion). --Matthew Humphreys 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article isn't really written in an encyclopedic manner, but it needs to fixed, not deleted as this is a proper topic. Is this the best namespace? Ace of Sevens 23:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Popular culture always is referenced to some degree in various parts of time, and I do not believe that decades are but an arbitrary way to define culture and cultural movements. One could cite examples and attempt to prove retro movements for any arbitrary period of time, but it's not particularly useful and attempts to imply a significance where none exists. Also, pretty much bound to be original research. GassyGuy 04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual Retro trends are too common / short-lived / uninteresting to deserve an article. -- GWO
• Keep. The article is quite interesting. Sahasrahla 07:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP: Sorry I kind of changed it. I didn't see the deletion thing until after I moved the page sorry. The '80s had nostalgia or a "Retro Movement" towards the '50s. And '70s culture had an impact of the '90s too, so these crazes must exist. (Tigerghost 04:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC))
  • I don't know how to revert my edit back till before my previous edit, im still a newb. (Tigerghost 04:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC))
    • I hope you don't mind but I've reverted all of your changes to the article. Assuming the existing article isn't deleted, please try to discuss any drastic changes with other users prior to making them. I can think of good reasons for the changes you made but there are equally good reasons for having seperate articles. --Matthew Humphreys 15:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot see any asserted rationale that stops this being a virtually random list of items of tangential relevance to "the 80s" per some random editor. Fails WP:NOR. --DaveG12345 04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like another rough draft in list form of an article that hasn't been written. Ste4k 06:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Article needs editing and developing not deleting. There are other fads and retro movement articles so the principle is acceptable, it's just the approach and writing of this one that is causing concern. SilkTork 10:34, 3 July 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.