130:- I didn't say the article is perfect as it is, I was disputing your categorisation of it as "research". My main point is that just because a given article doesn't currently conform to Knowledge standards, that doesn't automatically mean it ought to be deleted. If these types of concerns are raised about a specific article, those interested in the topic should work to bring it up to scratch, rather than simply deleting. There is potential here for a good article, though it needs a bit of work (if there
160:
Popular culture always is referenced to some degree in various parts of time, and I do not believe that decades are but an arbitrary way to define culture and cultural movements. One could cite examples and attempt to prove retro movements for any arbitrary period of time, but it's not particularly
194:: Sorry I kind of changed it. I didn't see the deletion thing until after I moved the page sorry. The '80s had nostalgia or a "Retro Movement" towards the '50s. And '70s culture had an impact of the '90s too, so these crazes must exist. (
91:
the article. Let's at least have a crack at editing it into an acceptable form first. Besides which I'm not sure I class much of it as research, it's more a list of easily verifiable examples that back up the existence of 80s retro.
266:- Article needs editing and developing not deleting. There are other fads and retro movement articles so the principle is acceptable, it's just the approach and writing of this one that is causing concern.
218:
changes with other users prior to making them. I can think of good reasons for the changes you made but there are equally good reasons for having seperate articles. --
234:
I cannot see any asserted rationale that stops this being a virtually random list of items of tangential relevance to "the 80s" per some random editor. Fails
148:
The article isn't really written in an encyclopedic manner, but it needs to fixed, not deleted as this is a proper topic. Is this the best namespace?
214:
I hope you don't mind but I've reverted all of your changes to the article. Assuming the existing article isn't deleted, please try to discuss any
17:
270:
258:
242:
222:
208:
198:
186:
165:
152:
138:
118:
96:
82:
57:
285:
36:
161:
useful and attempts to imply a significance where none exists. Also, pretty much bound to be original research.
284:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
63:
52:
149:
114:
78:
173:. Individual Retro trends are too common / short-lived / uninteresting to deserve an article. --
219:
135:
93:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
174:
109:
an indiscriminate list of information. As I said, I don't doubt that '80s retro exists. --
239:
205:
195:
183:
204:
I don't know how to revert my edit back till before my previous edit, im still a newb. (
69:
While I don't debate the existance of '80s retro, this article as written is completely
110:
74:
267:
251:
235:
162:
106:
70:
255:
278:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
254:
in list form of an article that hasn't been written.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
288:). No further edits should be made to this page.
134:, I would wholeheartedly support deletion). --
8:
182:. The article is quite interesting.
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
44:The result of the debate was
305:
187:07:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
166:04:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
153:23:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
139:18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
119:18:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
97:18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
83:17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
281:Please do not modify it.
271:10:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
259:06:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
243:04:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
223:15:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
209:04:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
199:04:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
58:02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
64:1980s retro movement
250:Looks like another
128:Response to Comment
220:Matthew Humphreys
136:Matthew Humphreys
94:Matthew Humphreys
71:original research
296:
283:
46:Keep and cleanup
34:
304:
303:
299:
298:
297:
295:
294:
293:
292:
286:deletion review
279:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
302:
300:
291:
290:
274:
273:
261:
245:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
189:
177:
168:
155:
143:
142:
141:
122:
121:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
301:
289:
287:
282:
276:
275:
272:
269:
265:
262:
260:
257:
253:
249:
246:
244:
241:
237:
233:
230:
224:
221:
217:
213:
212:
210:
207:
203:
202:
200:
197:
193:
190:
188:
185:
181:
178:
176:
172:
169:
167:
164:
159:
156:
154:
151:
150:Ace of Sevens
147:
144:
140:
137:
133:
129:
126:
125:
124:
123:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
101:
100:
99:
98:
95:
90:
85:
84:
80:
76:
72:
65:
62:
60:
59:
56:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
280:
277:
263:
247:
231:
215:
191:
179:
170:
157:
145:
131:
127:
102:
88:
86:
68:
53:
50:Deathphoenix
45:
43:
31:
28:
252:rough draft
240:DaveG12345
206:Tigerghost
196:Tigerghost
184:Sahasrahla
87:I vote to
115:chit chat
111:cholmes75
79:chit chat
75:cholmes75
268:SilkTork
163:GassyGuy
216:drastic
103:Comment
248:Delete
236:WP:NOR
232:Delete
171:Delete
158:Delete
132:wasn't
107:WP:NOT
256:Ste4k
16:<
264:Keep
238:. --
192:KEEP
180:Keep
146:Keep
89:keep
175:GWO
211:)
201:)
117:)
105:-
92:--
81:)
73:.
48:.
113:(
77:(
54:ʕ
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.