Deletion of 2010s in fashion (2nd nomination)

Comment: unless ''multiple'' sources can be found which back up the assertions in the article. Even if trends in fashion seem to be clear, it's not our place to esize a summary of them like this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: it's just / (It was a very long list of OR/SYN, and would presumably return to that state in future). Even if it were ever comprehensively referenced, how would a hypothetical editor cope with value judgements when (for instance) one source says crocs are cool and another says they're uncool? Do we have reliable sources which say one colour is ''really'' more popular than another, or do we have to accept the word of one out of a thousand writers who are at the very bottom of the journalistic ecosystem? I doubt there are any doctoral fashion researchers publishing peer-reviewed papers which say "''The colors pink, teal, purple, yellow and lime green are popular''". It's just a randomly-chosen value judgment, and you'd find different value judgements with a few seconds googling. This fatally undermines verifiability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: The nom states ''"...the 2010's have started and there is time for this article to be tidied?''" Per |BEFORE#10 - "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." AfD is not for cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)