Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960s fads and trends in North America


 * 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 both. I'm happy to userfy or otherwise restore the content to be repurposed as a navbox on request. lifebaka++ 14:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1960s fads and trends in North America

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Inclusion criteria for this list seem to be entirely subjective. Who decides what is a "fad" or "trend"? A large number of sources are given; but while they contain material about the individual topics, they don't show why the topics should be included in the list.

I am also nominating the related 1950s article, which in addition is entirely unsourced.



--B. Wolterding (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The Beatles are a fad/trend? Most of the conent on here is arguable as fare as it's faddishness or trendiness, and frankly, it is OR.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)'
 * Comment: Are you unfamiliar with Beatlemania?. 23skidoo (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the article says the Beatles and associated merchandise, not Beatlemania. Oh, and the Beatles are not were not a fad, or were they...  there is one of the problems with this OR article right there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not really - there's a ton of information out there about Beatles and Beatlemania being considered a fad and trend, at least in America. Anyway, I am abstaining from voicing an opinion on this article because I consider it an either/or situation, so I can't really choose a side. So if I may be allowed to make up a vote for me I'm going with no consensus.23skidoo (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The term "indiscriminate list" is much overused, but this is one of the times where it does apply. And FWIW, I suppose one could say the Beatles then became a fad--and have since acquired lastingly popularity. As you say, the need to xplain all of this is why this sort of short nonspecific article is of no use. DGG (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both Puke on articles like this that sum up an entire decade with images. Woodstock!  Peace sign!  The Beatles!  Lava lamp!  I Love Lucy!  Hula Hoop!  Coonskin cap!  Luckily, there are categories for 1960s fads and 1950s fads that serve the same purpose as this nostalgic list of things.  Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge The nomination's only objection is to the terms fad and trend. This is not a reason to delete since the terms are well understood and the article has many sources to justify them.  If we don't like the exact title then we can readily change it or merge the material into another article on a similar topic such as The Sixties. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a complete book which covers much of the same ground. This is evidently an encylopedic topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Spanning time from the colonization of America to the very latest craze, the 120 entries...." covers the same ground in the same way that a map of the world would cover Bucyrus, Ohio. Encyclopedic topic, sure, rendered in a non-encyclopedic way. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Colonel Warden. I have researched particular fads such as goldfish eating and panty raids for the related articles and found numerous newspaper and magazine articles as well as reference books about fads which offered proof of notability for individual fads. Organizing them by decade seems a very appropriate approach. Edison (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, Lava lamps, The Beatles, etc. are notable individually. But again, I don't see that this list has a reasonable inclusion criterion. There seems to be no good definition of what a "fad" is (just look at Fads and trends, I was tempted to nominate that article too). When would you include a topic in this list? If someone calls it a "fad"? Other people might call it otherwise. In the absence of an objective criterion, this is just another "X that have been called Y" list, which I wouldn't consider encyclopaedic. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of academic papers on fads which are mainly seen as herd behaviour. The details seem well covered at Bandwagon effect and so I have redirected there.  No AFD is needed for such action and the same applies to our case.  Deletion in such a case is not helpful and is disrepectful to our contributors.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Separately, delete the 1950s "article". The entries there are non-representative of cultural phenomena, fads, or anything else. I Love Lucy was a popular TV show, but there were many others; Elvis, the Everly Brothers, Rock around the Clock, etc. are jointly Rock and Roll; McDonald's may have started in the 1950s, but I doubt it was a cultural phenomenon until later (fast food would be a more representative link).--Father Goose (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Template:Cultural phenomena of the 1960s and repurpose as a navbox. In its current form, it's not an article; it's a collection of internal links.  That would be okay it were a navbox instead of an article.  "Fads and trends" is also an ill-chosen name; "cultural phenomena" would better encompass its subject matter.  The references given in the article are also useless and must be discarded; they appear to be little more than news articles that "happen to contain" the term in question.--Father Goose (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if you like, userfy to User:Father Goose for the purpose of creating a navbox - I'd agree to that. But, for a list, "cultural phenomena" is just as bad an inclusion criterion as "fads and trends". --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not volunteering to become the navbox's caretaker, but if someone else does, that's the course of action I recommend. If nobody steps forward, then, yeah, the outcome will be 'delete'.--Father Goose (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far too subjective and a clear violation of WP:OR in many situations. Trusilver  00:40, 5 August 2008 (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.