Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fads

List of fads

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]
Cleanup It's an interesitng article, shame it has POV and no research, I think somebody should make it better.--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]