Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of the 2000s


 * 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. Mr.Z-man 04:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Culture of the 2000s

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

Original research, no references, decade not over yet. Seems unlikely this can be rehabilitated into encyclopedic content until at least some minimum time has passed to allow for the development of reliable secondary sources from which information can be drawn. As it stands now, this is very limited in scope (centered on middle-class America) and unencyclopedic. Note that the Culture of the 1990s article shares some of these problems, and we've had eight years to look back on that decade. Dmwiki (talk) 08:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete is Original Research, indicated by phrases such as ".. can be said to be ...". Agree that we need historical perspective, and even then it will be hard to write something truly encylopedic.  TrulyBlue (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It would be a good topic for an article. The problem in this case is the old "original research" problem.  It's tempting for any of us to write our own observations about a decade that we're currently experiencing, and the intent was probably to set a framework for people to make their contributions.  And that's OK in most websites, but Wikipedia has a rule on point about this, and though it's not much fun, it's a good rule.  Here it is: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."  What this means is that an article like this is required to cite to someone else's observations that have been published in a book, magazine article, newspaper, etc.   It hurts to do that, because pop culture seems to get documented by some of the most poorly written books I've ever seen -- Julian Biddle's What Was Hot!: Five Decades of Pop Culture in America isn't even good as a bathroom reader, because the pages would clog up the plumbing.  Yes, you could probably do a better job than published authors, but the ban on OR applies to topics like this.  Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be original research on its enterity, the personal thoughts of one editor on what the culture of the 2000s was like. I have no problem with keeping the article if good sources are found for the statements, and the article updated to reflect those sources. Stuff like scholar studies of culture, or even long articles on Rolling Stones magazine of big magazines like Time magazine, where the main focus of those magazine article is examining the culture of the 2000s. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As well as it being about a year premature, there are certainly multiple issues with this article (such as a narrow viewpoint instead of a world viewpoint, lack of references etc). However, to my mind all of these issues can be remedied, and therefore I don't regard this article as a candidate for deletion. Bettia   (rawr CRUSH!)  15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is always going to be original research. -- neon white talk 14:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. As has been said above, reliable secondary sources simply do not yet exist that examine the culture of the decade we are in.  As it stands, the article is OR, crufty, and non-encyclopaedic. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently violates WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 23:01, 20 September 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.