Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good old days


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Good old days

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This phrase has never been the topic of any individual study. The citations given refer only to uses of that phrase and not to any WP:Reliable sources or to Third-party sources that talk about the phrase. This article reeks of WP:Original research. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It is easy to find studies of the topic. Here's an example. The article is tagged for improvement today but please don't bring it here because AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Something is notable here. Either the phrase or the feeling behind it.  The essay Colonel Warden provided discusses both. Another choice would be to merge with nostalgia. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Some amusing reading in the 2004 Articles for deletion/Olden days. –Quiddity (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Nostalgia. –Quiddity (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * keep I agree with Colonel Warden Ginosti (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge I agree that there is something notable about this. Though we may not have many citations for it yet, I feel they likely do exist.  I would either keep it, or merge and redirect it to Nostalgia.  I lean towards keeping it though. Zell Faze (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As the one who nominated this for tafi, I see dorm inherent notability on this article. I agree with Warden and also want to offer this RationalWiki article as an example of where this article could go. There are a wealth of sources on the Internet and I think the best thing to do would be to go out and nab em rather then having this theoretical discussion. :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Less than a day and a half after it was tagged for improvement, it gets nominated for deletion. It is more than just a simple definition, and more could be added to the article surely.  The massive number of results from Google news and Google books make it hard to find anything specific.  But the expression does certainly clearly get used a lot.  It is definitely cliché    D r e a m Focus  19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. bd2412  T 20:02, 1 October 2013 (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.