Answer: It should be hard to delete valid articles and lists, but lists are not exempted- I could show you closed AfDs for many deleted lists. However, I fail to see how your question has the slightest bearing on reaching consensus here. Instead, it is a divisive side comment not pertinent to analysing this list and highly detrimental to the collegial atmosphere required for a proper AfD discussion. In the same way, arguing for the deletion of something while labeling it "pointless" is unfair, unnecessary, and insults the efforts of many editors over a three-year period and our readers who spend countless hours perusing these lists. They and many others do not see this list as pointless. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but if you have a point then please make it without resorting to name calling or circumlocutory attacks on the intelligence of wiki participants. -- JJay04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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]
Again, this is not the forum to discuss your perception that it is more difficult to delete lists. I reiterate that it should be difficult to delete valid articles and lists. Perhaps that is the source of your frustration. Nevertheless, the present list is perfectly NPOV and de facto sourced as its components consist almost exclusively of items that have articles here at wikipedia. Clicking on a random sampling of these items shows that they are nearly invariably described as fads or trends in the individual articles (exceptions can and should be removed to the talk page). However, either all those individual articles are wrong, or the list is sound. You can't have it both ways. Furthermore, please don't use wikipedia guidleines as a smokescreen to hide your fundamental distaste for this list. Have you tried to validate the individual items? Do you realize how easy it would be to add sources if that was really required (i.e. if we lacked the corresponding articles)? And those who call this list POV and argue for replacing it with a category, should explain why the category would not be POV. Moreover, I see fads that relate to Europe and Japan and I don't think it would be very difficult to add more non-US fads to this list. Popular culture exists worldwide. Fads exist worldwide. There is thus no reason that fads can not be placed on a list. -- JJay06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
