Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade nostalgia


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Decade nostalgia

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

Seems to be a piece of original research with no references to back up the existance of this possible neologism which doesnt seem to differ from nostalgia. neon white talk 14:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

keep, article is useful - —(this unsigned comment was posted by User:A plague of rainbows)
 * Keep Though largely original research at the moment, the article gives signs that sourcing has started and that the editors are working on gathering more sourcing. I'll concede that I may be biased, because articles of this nature are usually crap, while this one, surprisingly, seems to be sound intelligent.  There have been numerous. other analyses of nostalgia, stereotypes and signature images of particular decades, and I guess my point is that this is verifiable and can be sourced.  Mandsford (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Provide some sources to prove this isnt OR. The majority of the article is just a summary of the 20th century and has nothing to do with the title. The only line of use "Decade nostalgia is nostalgia for certain aspects of a past decade within contemporary popular culture." is unsourced. -- neon white talk 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would, but someone used the last source yesterday, and the next shipment won't be here till Monday. Mandsford (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * it doesnt have to be sourced as it is a simple adjectival term a la cetacean intelligence or modular design —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * er...yes it does and of course it does. Everything on wikipedia has to be sourced.  If you look at those articles you'll note that cetacean intelligence has over 20 footnotes and an additional ~20 references.  -Markeer 20:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

*Question, Before I would look more at the article details, my first question would be if the phrase "decade nostalgia" has been used or studied in academic journals (or even news pieces). Step 1 when making an article about a neologism is to definitively cite that the word or phrase is out in the world being used in some sort of official capacity. Are there any concrete citations for this exact phrase? If those can't be found, then entire article is suspect regardless of content. -Markeer 16:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Crufty OR. Unsourceable. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There are no sources, and the article is mostly made up of lists of so-called "cultural touchstones" all of which are debatable.  What is the source of this term?  I never heard of it before seeing this article, and there is no reasonable explanation of its origin.  As already stated above, this is crufty OR. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete After a few days there's been no evidence that this article is citeable. The only citation offered is a use of the phrase in an entertainment news piece for a retro CD, which is a trivial mention in at best a weakly reliable source.  If solid citation in academic or news sources can be found, this article can be recreated.  Until then, delete. -Markeer 03:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge I took a quick look for sources and soon found this which seems adequate to demonstrate that there's a topic here. How the material is organised among the various articles of this sort is a matter for content editing not deletion.Colonel Warden (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a good enough source for a keep. Notability would require article dedicated to a subject which imo doesnt differ at all from nostalgia. -- neon white talk 18:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unsourceable original research, bordering on an essay. Crufty, and very POV.   SIS   13:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a big massive heap of original research. Stifle (talk) 21:14, 19 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.