89:? Are you kidding me?) In addition, the entire article is America-centric, without admitting it. And on top of everything else, the article has a name that almost nobody will come to Knowledge and search for in the first place. As this AfD is certain to get a number of blind "keep" votes from those with a strong personal interest in the page's survival, I strongly urge the closing admin to examine the article itself and the discussion here; please don't just count votes on this one. --
314:, today they printed an article about Audrey Hepburn and how there's a big trend these days with fashion and pop culture emulating her (including the current GAP ad campaign built up around her). As a part of that, the article quoted someone in the local fashion industry as saying that Audrey's big right now because there is a big 50s revival going on. It just brings home the point that it's pretty easy to say that there's a particular pop-culture movement on at any time.
267:. This article is really a list, ad doesn't seem like a particularly bad idea for one either. Nom is right that the list doesn't prove there is a "movement" or anything, and with the current title there are OR issues, but as a list, it just needs some basic editing. I volunteer to edit the list down to very clear examples if it is kept (whether or not it is moved).
332:. It would obviously be preferable to have citations to some scholarly sources. It seems entirely correct however to suggest that the current "article" is really a list, and if kept it needs to be either massively overhauled or moved to an alternative title, with a number of the examples either cited or deleted. --
76:
violation; there is no inherent evidence that society is in the midst of any "1980s retro movement" whatsoever, nor does the article even attempt to assert this as a fact. (There's been a cite tag on the first sentence of the article since the end of the first AfD; we're still waiting for that cite.)
328:
but just barely. I personally believe 80s retro is a definite trend, and a quick Google search for "1980s retro" suggests I'm not alone in that perception. As those proposing deletion have (rightly) pointed to the lack of citations, I will mention that one of the sources turned up by that brief
159:
section on the 2006 year article, aren't they original research. That is all I have to say. This is not a personal attack! All of the things on this article have had the creditablity of being aired on television or a movie, just like a TV show's trivia or a year in fiction section.
286:. Unverifiable matter of opinion and, in a way, original research. I think it would be pretty easy to compile a list of things that make it look like there's currently a "retro movement" for any decade. Really, how can there not be a 70s retro movement
349:
list of examples and a category for other examples would go a long way toward improving this. But, per the nomination, if no one has cleaned it up since the last AfD, why would they do so now? So, unless someone comes forward and either
345:. My position is similar to that on the deletion of the 1970s retro movement, there could probably be a good article on this topic, but this isn't the one. Some verifiable prose on the movement in general coupled with a
107:
65:
178:
195:- cramed to the shoulder-pads with gratuitous, cherry-picked original research. Impossible to even begin to cover it here - just see for yourself.--
424:
408:
392:
372:
358:
336:
318:
302:
278:
247:
231:
219:
199:
185:
164:
142:
118:
93:
52:
215:
and I think it is safe to say that if it didn't get fixed after the last AfD the chances it will get fixed in the future are slim.--
271:
260:
77:
Most of the single-line "events" listed in the article are uncited, and many of them strain credulity past the breaking point (
17:
354:
improves this article or volunteers to do so in a reasonable amount of time, I think
Knowledge will be better off without it.
86:
404:
Not sure how good a source it is but the site does exist - there was a problem with the link, which I have now fixed.--
155:
sections on pages of television or movie articles up for deletion, they seem like
Original Research. Or what about the
445:
36:
444:
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
151:: sorry for my previous statements Aaron...however if u charge this for Original research then why aren't the
111:
103:
58:
174:
138:
surely don't get out much and probrobly spend all day deleting good articles on wikipedia. Good day! (
130:
228:
78:
135:
82:
68:. However, in the three months since, not only has it not been cleaned up, it's gotten much worse (
49:
405:
333:
134:. Much like the '70s were retro in the '90s and the '60s retro in the '80s. Those who don't see
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
298:
out on the road plugging his new work (or would that be the current 60s retro movement?).
268:
244:
161:
139:
421:
389:
366:- This article can easily be cited. A simple google search reveals a number of sources
291:
243:- above vote from 63.64.30.2 belongs to me. Don't know why it dropped the login.... --
216:
315:
299:
212:
385:
369:
73:
384:, like a dead link to a non-existant tripod site? Sorry, that doesn't quite meet
330:
208:
355:
295:
196:
182:
115:
90:
367:
85:? In what ways? Because they're both an hour long and both are/were on
64:
This article was first nominated for deletion in June, and the AfD was
420:, it's easier to mull over external info that I can actually see...--
438:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
227:, with the note that this is better handled by a category. --
310:: As embarrassed as I am to admit that I was "reading" the
69:
108:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/1970s retro movement
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
448:). No further edits should be made to this page.
110:, which is everything you never wanted in the
8:
261:List of 1980s nostalgia in popular culture
128:: The 1980s Retro Movement is part of the
294:having recently released a new album and
72:). Basically, the article is a gigantic
7:
329:search included a BBC News article
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
337:20:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
319:23:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
303:19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
279:19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
248:19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
232:19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
220:18:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
200:18:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
186:18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
165:23:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
143:18:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
119:19:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
94:18:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
66:closed as a "keep but cleanup"
1:
425:18:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
409:17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
393:16:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
373:19:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
359:18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
53:15:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
465:
441:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
106:at the same time, see
102:: I'm also nominating
171:Note to closing admin
114:article and less! --
112:1980s retro movement
104:1970s retro movement
79:Desperate Housewives
59:1980s retro movement
312:Vancouver Province
177:is also currently
81:is reminiscent of
406:Matthew Humphreys
334:Matthew Humphreys
213:original research
456:
443:
290:, what with the
276:
175:Twenty Year Rule
131:Twenty Year Rule
34:
464:
463:
459:
458:
457:
455:
454:
453:
452:
446:deletion review
439:
272:
157:2006 in fiction
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
462:
460:
451:
450:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
412:
411:
396:
395:
376:
375:
361:
339:
323:
322:
321:
292:New York Dolls
281:
253:
252:
251:
250:
235:
234:
222:
207:as article is
202:
190:
189:
188:
168:
136:boomerang fads
122:
121:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
461:
449:
447:
442:
436:
435:
426:
423:
419:
416:
415:
414:
413:
410:
407:
403:
400:
399:
398:
397:
394:
391:
387:
383:
380:
379:
378:
377:
374:
371:
368:
365:
362:
360:
357:
353:
348:
344:
340:
338:
335:
331:
327:
324:
320:
317:
313:
309:
306:
305:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
280:
277:
275:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
254:
249:
246:
242:
239:
238:
237:
236:
233:
230:
226:
223:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
201:
198:
194:
191:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
158:
154:
150:
147:
146:
144:
141:
137:
133:
132:
127:
124:
123:
120:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
98:
97:
96:
95:
92:
88:
84:
80:
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
440:
437:
417:
401:
381:
363:
351:
346:
342:
325:
311:
307:
287:
283:
273:
264:
256:
240:
224:
204:
192:
170:
156:
152:
148:
129:
125:
99:
63:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
364:Strong Keep
343:Weak Delete
296:Paul Simon
245:Dennisthe2
229:63.64.30.2
209:unverified
179:up for AfD
162:Tigerghost
140:Tigerghost
422:Isotope23
390:Isotope23
308:Follow up
217:Isotope23
402:Response
316:Agent 86
300:Agent 86
70:see diff
382:Comment
370:Chubdub
352:greatly
347:shorter
241:Comment
225:Abstain
149:Comment
83:Dynasty
50:W.marsh
418:Thanks
284:Delete
205:Delete
193:Delete
153:trivia
386:WP:RS
356:Cool3
274:juice
269:Mango
197:Nydas
183:Aaron
116:Aaron
91:Aaron
74:WP:OR
16:<
326:Keep
265:keep
257:Move
181:. --
126:KEEP
100:Note
388:.--
288:now
263:or
259:to
87:ABC
211:,
173::
145:)
48:.
341:'
167:)
160:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.