Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980s 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

1980s fads and trends in North America

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Indiscriminate list of things that simply happened in that decade with no objective criteria for inclusion or secondary sources establishing each entry as a fad. Dbromage [Talk]  05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Fads and trends are subjects of significant interest, and are often the subject of written works, so the sources necessary for the article probably exist in some capacity. Calgary 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think this sort of article certainly qualifies as interesting and not indiscriminate, but it could do with some sources and cleanup (in particular, branded products seem to be randomly mentioned, presumably put it because an editor is a fan of those products - Macintosh is mentioned as 1984-present as if it was the only personal computer that existed, it might be better to replace these with general terms such as "personal computer"). Mdwh 10:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article could use some cleanup, but has the potential to be terrific. I disagree with the above commentor also in that I think brand names are appropriate when mentioned.  "personal computers" are not a fad or trend--we all know they're here to stay--but the Macintosh absolutely was a trend in the time period between Commodore 64s and Windows PCs.  Keepscases 20:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not so much a problem with mentioning the Mac, but that it's the only computer mentioned - I guess if platforms like the C64 and PC were mentioned too, this would be another way of fixing it. Depends how much detail we want I guess (see also Timeline of computing 1980-1989, for a lot more detail).
 * Also note that only fads are things which fall in popularity, trends on the other hand includes things which stay (and indeed, the Mac, along with many others, are listed as being "-present"; it doesn't say that the trend ended when Windows PCs became popular). Mdwh 21:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Inherently POV as to what constitutes a "fad". How can something listed as "1980s-present" be a fad? Thin Arthur 05:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Presumably that would be a trend. It's only fads which wane in popularity, but this article is fads and trends, hence avoiding the POV issue you claim. Mdwh 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No way could this be an encyclopediac topic.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree there may be issues with this topic - but you are saying that an article discussing national trends over the decade is inherently unencyclopedic? On the contrary, I'd say this is one of the most important issues I would expect an encyclopedia should cover, it's just a shame we don't currently do it very well. Mdwh 00:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed that such articles could be worthy inclusions on wikipedia. The main issues are verifability, criteria for inclusion (a fundamental starting point for any article) and content, coupled with recentism (how far back should we go?) and schematic bias (are we likely to see similar articles for other continents? If this article survives would 1980s fads and trends in South America or similar be possible, bearing in mind a lack of English information?) BeL1EveR 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Trivial subject matter, virtually no prose, and consistent with previous AfDs on 1990s and 2000s fads. BeL1EveR 10:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Open-ended list without reliably-sourced and objective list of criteria for inclusion. Cool Hand Luke 15:02, 4 September 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.