Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s in fashion (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2010s in fashion
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * This article was under speedy delete as "it contains numerous Crystal ball, original research issues and is too soon to merit an article"; but (unlike at the previous AfD) the 2010's have started and there is time for this article to be tidied? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. We are already in the 2010s, so the article is not about a future event. I do think, however, that the article needs a complete rewrite. Once that's done, then it should be placed under protection so that only experienced editors may edit it. Otherwise, it'll keep looking like a sloppy grocery list.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless multiple sources can be found which back up the assertions in the article. Even if trends in fashion seem to be clear, it's not our place to WP:SYNTHesize a summary of them like this. Zetawoof (&zeta;) 16:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Unless the article references the term from the media and reliable sourcing (which could exist, in its present form doesn't)(its seems completely unref'd), im not seeing that info present has any indication of enduring notability and merely is a combination of original research, synthesisis (major issues here) and some crystal balling (not too much since were in 2010/11). Article could (probably) be tidied as above but will someone do this? Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The nom states "...the 2010's have started and there is time for this article to be tidied?" Per BEFORE#10 - "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." AfD is not for cleanup.  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Afd is for article rescue though. If no one will tidy an article to inclusion standards (by tidying adding refs), the article fails notablility as it is only comprised of original research and synthesis without referencing, as well as a speedy deltion in 2010, and a previous AFD deletion where the new article fails to address the concerns of the previous discussion (and related deletions); then yes a discussion is warrented in this case at AFD. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Adding refs" is a dangerously flawed concept. If a statement -- especially an inherently opinion-based one, like a summary of fashion trends -- didn't originate in a source, searching for a source after the fact and attaching it to previously written text is risky. In this case, it's likely to amount to picking and choosing sources to support the statements the article already makes. Zetawoof (&zeta;) 08:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very much agreed. But in a case where the article is predominately original research and synthesis that information should be removed. Whatever can be formulated in such a way that can be referenced showing notability of the topic should stay. If the entire article is OR and nothing can be contributed to show notability, then that is what were left with: deletion. Ive said above my deletion input is weak, but there is nothing dangerous with referencing an article and trying to write it in such a way.Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, part of the purpose of AfD is judging whether an article is fixable, but Lugnuts is right to say that AfD isn't for making other editors fix it. I don't think we can write anything factual about 2010s in fashion, because it would all be speculative: an article about what the reliable sources think the 2010s will bring. That doesn't strike me as a very good idea for an article at all. But deletion is avoidable in this case (and so, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, should be avoided).  The answer is to rename to 2010 in fashion (which is presently a redirect to this article).  Anyone who says they can't find reliable sources for that has no business trying to write a collaborative encyclopaedia.— S Marshall  T/C 22:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any reference for 2010 in fashion can be used for the 2010s. Breaking up the decade into individual fashion years seems a little too fine-grained &mdash; do we create a separate article for 2011? How many years is enough to comment on the decade? Feezo (Talk) 02:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is too soon to speak of fashion of 2010-2019. It isn't even 2011 yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquelyn1998 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It will be 2011 in 9 days time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE: Articles like this one should be made in retrospect. It is just too soon to have an article that scopes a whole decade that isn't even half way over yet. We do not know what the fashion trends will be like in 2013, let alone nine years from now in 2019. (Tigerghost (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Comment: When a new president or Prime Minister assumes office, we don't wait for the end of his/her term to have an article on the person. Why should fashion be any different? --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An article on the history and acts of a president or Prime Minister is much less subjective than an article on fashion trends. It may be instructive to note that 1990s in fashion and 2000s in fashion are short and underreferenced as well. Zetawoof (&zeta;) 17:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An article's lack of references and length are not determining factors for deletion. This article needs to be re-written in an encyclopedic style and then placed under protection so that it doesn't resemble a child's jottings in a notebook.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless you're one of those people who thinks it'll be the 2000s until 2099. NewWaveKid (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; it's just WP:OR/WP:SYN (It was a very long list of OR/SYN, and would presumably return to that state in future). Even if it were ever comprehensively referenced, how would a hypothetical editor cope with value judgements when (for instance) one source says crocs are cool and another says they're uncool? Do we have reliable sources which say one colour is really more popular than another, or do we have to accept the word of one out of a thousand writers who are at the very bottom of the journalistic ecosystem? I doubt there are any doctoral fashion researchers publishing peer-reviewed papers which say "The colors pink, teal, purple, yellow and lime green are popular". It's just a randomly-chosen value judgment, and you'd find different value judgements with a few seconds googling. This fatally undermines verifiability. bobrayner (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2010 (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.