Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970s 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. — TKD::Talk 06:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

1970s fads and trends in North America

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

....*Cringe*..... Not only is this article written like a transcript of text from some cheesy infomercial or VH-1 special, the fundamental premise is hopelessly vague and broad. An utterly indiscriminate collection of information if ever there was one. wikipediatrix 01:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Original research, full of POV, and not even accurate - how the hell is Jimmy Hoffa a 1970s fad or trend? I hate editors who play games with hidden links - Robert Duvall decided to go surfing in Vietnam. Crazysuit 02:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - What a train wreck! Completely POV OR and written like a Casey Kasem top 40 countdown. — Travis talk  02:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, man, delete! This thing is like a bad acid trip. Fails WP:OR, among many other things. Realkyhick 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and all above. --Metropolitan90 04:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Word, Realkyhick~ Dbromage  [Talk]  04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert, and then possibly renominate all Wooooooah people. If you notice the right side of the article, this topic exists for the last four decades. The other three articles (fads of the 80s, 90s, and 00s) are all simple lists. This article, as well, used to be a simple list until a single editor took it over . Now, I don't know if I'm such a big fan of these kinds of arbitrary, uncited lists in any context. Thus, I say we close the nomination of this terrible, terrible, terrible article, revert it to when it was a mere list and not vomit-inducing, and then- if anyone feels they should be- nominate the entire lot of articles for deletion (or just let 'em all live in their listiness). -- Kicking222 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even the previous version is unsourced, possibly OR and obviously listcruft. How are ESPN and Garfield defined as a fad? Ditto the other decades (watch this space....) Dbromage  [Talk]  05:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those need to be deleted too, in my opinion Corpx 05:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Way ahead of you there! Dbromage  [Talk]  05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I disagree that there is anything wrong with the premise, as information on general fads or trends of a decade is encyclopedic. As a much better example of this, see 1970s. Since we have this much better article on the decade, and that this article is rather poor, I vote delete, but note that my vote should not be taken as support for deletion of any future article on this topic. Mdwh 10:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For a proper list article, the premise needs to be either fads or trends, not both. What kind of trends? Economic trends? Fashion trends? political trends? It's just too vague, too broad, too big. Listing 70s fads alone is already too much - I could sit here and off the top of my head list enough 70s fads to make the article too long for Wikipedia standards. Lastly, the article says "North America". Think about it. Mexico had a completely separate and different culture from the USA in the 70s, and this USA-centric material has no connection to it whatsoever. Do we really intend this article to cover "trends" in Newfoundland, Greenland and Bermuda? (Yes, they're part of North America.) wikipediatrix 13:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it should be a list article; as you say, that would lead to problems like a neverending list of fads. I don't see a problem with a non-list article - as I say, see 1970s. This article summarises major fads, trends (which are not always easy to distinguish between, and I'm not sure why they need to be separate?) and more in a single article. Are there problems with that article too? The problem with the article name is not a reason for deletion, that can be fixed by moving it to something like 1970s fads and trends in the United States (at one point it was simply 1970s fads and trends - presumably the editor moved it having similar concerns to you, but didn't make it specific enough). Mdwh 21:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Like, back in the 1970s, before there was the Internet, people still liked to copy someone else's stuff word for word and pretend like they had wrote it themselves, but they figured it was unlikely they'd get caught, 'cos there was no way to check it out, but they had to work harder at doing it 'cos there was no "cut and paste" like there is now, except if you did cut something out and pasted it onto a piece of paper with airplane glue, you could get real high and... and.... FAR OUT!!!!65.207.127.12 00:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete man! Thin Arthur 05:50, 30 August 2007 (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.