Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear craze

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clear craze

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Concerns about WP:GNG as raised earlier on the talk page by another user. In short, the article has unclear and indefinite inclusion criteria that's not backed up by secondary coverage. An example of this is the false equivalence of 'clear' beverages and transparent consumer electronics, which seem to be very distinct trends unified only by implication in this article. The article reads like a list of random clear products rather than articulating what made the trend a "craze". Just not enough evidence at present to substantiate notability in my opinion. If this is deemed notable, suggest a rewrite of the article focusing on (a) the substance and use of the term, and (b) being more rigorous about what about products from that era make it attributable to the trend, backed by sources. Welcome any thoughts - thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m old enough to remember the phenomenon of many products being marketed as clear. Was it a fad? Maybe. Was it a craze? Hardly. If this is kept or searched, try Clear fad. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any chance that the nominator would reduce this essay into a concise nomination statement? I don't think many editors will read all of this with the care required to come to a thoughtful decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry about that. Was a bit manic. I've simplified the nomination. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ＶＲＸＣＥＳ. It was all useful information but the bottleneck here at AFDs is participation and a large body of text like that generally has editors just moving on to the next AFD rather than taking the time to process all of that information. So, it was a strategic suggestion, not a content-based one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources here don't do very much to support the idea of a "clear craze", a name that appears to come from a single usage in this Newsweek article. Newsweek aside, most of these are discussing individual clear products outside the context of a unifying trend. I don't think the sources analyze this trend enough that we can be linking products made for prisons, clear sodas, and translucent consumer electronics without veering into original research. hinnk (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after thinking about this a few days, I agree that it should be deleted. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2024 (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.