Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. The article has been trimmed nicely, and as a stub, it is referenced enough to be kept. Keeper | 76 17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generation Z

Generation Z (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Good god, where to begin. Gen Z is a basically blank article when we remove all the original research, dealing with what is essentially a US media buzz word. There is absolutely no real scientific source or research and a surprising majority of the sources refer to the Delaney incident. It had had a deletion debate resulting in a delete but has apparently been recreated. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete potentially Speedy/CSD G4 (Previous AfD)-- RoninBK T C 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Let's wait until this generation described here gets into middle school before the media slaps an unnotable (and dare I say, lazy) 'buzzworthy' label on them. Right now they're just kids and that's good enough for me. There's also another tag which unfortunately will define them a bit more and is in more common use; Generation 9/11. Nate • (chatter) 11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete G4 and salt. Second recreation of deleted material. Redfarmer (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The above is no longer relevant because the section that was objected to as a "recreation" has been deleted. Please delete this request for deletion and help write a better article it you object to stubs. Can anyone doubt that the article will grow in the future? It is a good stub. Don't pull up crops just cuz they are not full grown. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

With the OR removed, the article is now essentially a dictionary definition. Thus, I maintain my delete vote under WP:NOT#DICT as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, would seem to fall under WP:NEO as this seems to be a term which is new to come into existence and does not have an agreed upon definition. Redfarmer (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Goggle shows 18400 hits for the term. Let the article live long enough to become more. "Not being a dictionary" does not we delete all stubs. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed your separator, I did not object on grounds of recreation, I merely noted that after my objections to the article in order to provide a complete picture, as I would have assumed was obvious. The editors who voted did so fully able to look at the article and its history themselves, without your guidance. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

comment Maybe I've missed something, why do the nom and others think this is not notable/unsourced when it seems to list several articles, a book etc that reference it, some of the articles in reputable newspapers? Perhaps you could all take another look at the article, maybe it has changed from the version upon which you are commenting. We might find the idea of this annoying, but it is well sourced. It doesn't need to be based on 'serious/scientific research'- not saying that's bad/wrong, but for wiki purposes we're not a solely science-based wiki, it just needs to be discussed in reasonably reputable media. Merkinsmum 17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

what I mean is, several articles in fairly mainstream media (even if it's not highbrow). Merkinsmum 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Clear Keep How is this not notable? Washington Post article alone does it. Further, it clearly is going to be a widely used term, so salting it is just crazy seems unwise. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • According to whom, exactly? There is no one authority on generational terms and they can just as easily change if some other event defines a decade. Let's also note that the Washington Post needs features articles to fill out their paper so they write these stories that do so and generate debate about what a generation cshould be called. What may be correct now may not be so at the end of 2009 or 2019, and I could come up with quite a few names off the top of my head that could be credible (The MySpace/Facebook/vogue social network of the day Generation for instance). Nate • (chatter) 21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure, it might not become hugely popular. But a Washington Post article solely on the term establishes notability (plus the other sources). And I think it would be unwise to salt a topic that is at least likely to be a common part of our cultural vocabulary. I'd certainly take an even money bet on this one. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree that salting isn't the best course of action at least (too rash), but I stand by my statements. Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
          • At the top you said "Let's wait until this generation described here gets into middle school". This article applies to everyone born after 1990; 18 years old and younger as of 2008. You "stand by" your claim that media judgements about them are too early? The media does not agree with you. Are you wikipedia's authority or are reliable published sources? WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The media also collapses into a collective orgy every time Paris Hilton replaces her slippers but we don't publish that. We don't have to give in to every whim of the media, let alone a place-holder buzzword. And the sources are shady at best. As for "media judgements", let's not go down that slippery slope. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - as I noted above, the article has changed enough so the reasons given to delete no longer apply. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"Gen Z is a basically blank article when we remove all the original research, dealing with what is essentially a US media buzz word. There is absolutely no real scientific source or research..." - which part of the primary objections doesn't apply? +Hexagon1 (t) 05:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak Keep Most of the references given were to unreliable newsletters and blog postings, the apparent result of taking everything however marginal to be found in Google. I have removed them. I am less than happy about two of the remaining ones--there is no good documentation for the relations to the book Generations, and the Corey article is as close to a blog posting as a newspaper can get. I think it is probably a notable term, but it will need much better documentation. DGG (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In response to the initial reasons given to delete the article, I removed what was claimed to be a recreation of a deleted article on a specific person noted widely as a representative of Generation Z and added the first half dozen google hits. Goggle shows 18400 hits for the term. I in no way added everything Google could find. Maybe we should add back the specific person noted widely as a representative of Generation Z? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You have ignored all what I've posted in reply to you. Please re-read it. My initial criticism wasn't the fact it was recreated, as I explain above. I fear you may have misunderstood my qualms with the article. And if by the person "noted widely" as a representative of gen Z you mean Delaney, I'd like to see some sources backing up such an assertion. Multiple, if possible. Thank you +Hexagon1 (t) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
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.