Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fads

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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fads[edit]

Anglocentric and pointless, but of course that's not a reason to delete. "Fad" being POV (see talk page where "grunge" is considered a fad) so any element indluded here will involve a value judgment is a reason to delete. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmaintainable POV listcruft Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per AB and Segv11. Adding articles like this to Wikpedia is only a passing trend. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting insight into the culture of the times Fg2 10:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a useful list to anybody researching fads of different decades or fads in general. Logophile 13:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, almost completely American-centric, highly POV, ad nauseam. ^Blank ^Verse 14:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NOT, an indiscriminate list of info. 70.122.87.59 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup It's an interesitng article, shame it has POV , I think somebody should make more encyclopedic.--MasK of ThE CARNIVAL 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems that quite a lot of thought has gone into this list. I think there should be more of an introduction to explain the relevence of the list. Dave 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disputes over POV can be resolved by editting and talk paging. Potentially NPOV-able, and well-maintained. Batmanand 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic, useful, and well-collected. Owen× ☎ 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question is it just me, or are lists incredibly hard to delete, regardless of their content? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contains lots of useful information. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent use of the list format to steer people to our coverage of historic fads. -- JJay 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless list and because Aaron is completely right, both about this being unencyclopedic (can be adequately covered by a category) and inherently POV as well as the seemingly incredible resistance to the elimination of any list. ever. Eusebeus 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not POV. It might have systemic bias; if so, please encourage readers with knowledge of other cultures to add information about fads in those cultures. But systemic bias is different from POV. Systemic bias is not reason to delete one article; it's reason to add to it or to create balancing articles. Fg2 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic and POV. KramarDanIkabu 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Technically all fads are POVs, but the list is very resourceful, where else could you find a list of fads from the 1960s to today. The problem is that people see things they don't like in this article, then they believe that it is inaccurate, which is intirelly false (All fads are POVs). I personally didn't like the Furby or Snap Bracelet fad, but I cannot deny that it was a fad. The list for me also makes me feel nostalgic and brings back personal memories too. I would bet the person that posted the deletion saw the 2000s fads only and said "Oh My God! This must be deleted!!!" he or she probrably also didn't like the fads because they are to loyal to their own, so the deletion for this article is also a POV miss conseption. (Tigerghost 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Unsupported POV, no sources, no references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Statement Jossi said is Not True: I posted my references in the discussion section, they include VH1: I Love The... Series as well as several other sites including Crazy Fads.com, www.angelfire.com/fl/JackCraig/FADS.html, inthe90s.com, as well as others. (Tigerghost 05:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment This edit was removed when an editor removed their own comments. My "question" above was poorly worded, and when this was brought to my attention I offered the following revision:

Aye, that could have been phrased better, so how about this: We require that items in this encyclopedia meet certain requirements, chief among them being WP:NPOV which has its foundation in WP:V and WP:CITE. The very nature of lists means that it is frightfully easy to add items, the sheer number of which makes it difficult to ensure that they are all correct. Additionally, systemic bias means that, for a given population, we'll have a number of entries proportional to that population, making a list violate NPOV. Thus, if we moved this list to List of fads in the United States and were scrupulous about our definition of "fad" and removing things that could not be verifired as fad per Wikipedia:Reliable sources than there would be no problem. But let us make some small concession to pragmatism, that is not going to happen. Thus I re-iterate: why is it much more difficult to delete an NPOV, uncited list than it would be a prose article with the same problem? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BlankVerse. Garbage bin content with no encyclopedical quality. Pavel Vozenilek 01:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.