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 was delete. NW (Talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture history, 1920-present

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a bunch of random largely unsourced "facts". I can see no plausible direction this article could take that would warrant its inclusion. Nymf _talk/contr. 14:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it's somewhat interesting and qualifies as informed opinion, it's all original synthesis. Basically, this is one man's personal vision about "six different stages" of Western pop culture history since electronic media (i.e., radio, television, internet) came into common use. An original essay, no matter how good, no matter how well-informed, is barred by Wikipedia. Were it not otherwise, we would have no end to the personal observations of out many editors. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Pretty much a magnet for inflated what links here number and sounds like a summary of any of a number of remember when specials. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was tempted to nominate this as soon as it was created, but held off and left notes at appropriate WikiProjects to see if it would improve. It didn't. What 'pop culture' is is not defined in the article, it's a hodge-podge of whatever came off the top of the head of the article creator. It's their opinion of what counts as pop culture (in America), lumped into sections according to their own judgement. Fences&Windows 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a talk page that is empty, and no citation needed tags placed anywhere about. Please read WP:BEFORE. AFD is suppose to be the final step, not the first. There are plenty of books out there published on pop culture, or you can tell something is popular by seeing the sales figures. To list what sort of music was popular in an era, you can just take the ten bestselling ones. This could've all been worked out on the talk page, without having to come here. List your complaints and concerns there, and talk it out. Dream Focus 06:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment didn't make a whole lot sense, but see User_talk:DriveMySol#Pop_culture_history.2C_1920-present. It has been close to a month since the user said that he/she would work on it. It has been untouched for the past 2 weeks. Also see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Culture#Pop_culture_history, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Pop_culture_history etc. Really no need to lecture me, as I am aware of the policy, which is why I or F&W didn't nominate it earlier. Nymf _talk/contr. 12:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and see this edit. Nymf _talk/contr. 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, generally per other delete recommendations above. This article seems to be extremely superficial coverage of the last 90 years of movies, television, music, and certain other cultural aspects, and it is not clear whether more in-depth coverage was even intended to be included. The topics covered in this article are much better covered in other Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per almost everyone above. JBsupreme (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial listcruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the good reasons already articulated. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a bad article, but (unless there is something better to merge it with), it ought to be kept and improved. I am surprised at the failure to mention the Beatles, and I am far from sure that musical phases are marked by the ends of decades. However, a general article on this subject certainly is needed. This is from some one who does not like "pop". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2010 (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.