Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Generation

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 of the debate was No consensus/keep. Stifle (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Generation

Neologism, if it's used at all - DavidWBrooks 00:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Funky Monkey 00:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for reason cited. patsw 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or Transwiki. I was a bit surprised at how many hits I got when I searched usedthis term (on AltaVista, just to be contrary). However, the article itself is largely unsourced and opinion, and at best warrants being moved over to the wiktionary. Fluit 01:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Part of the Delete Generation -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong keep. My first reaction on reading the article was strong delete. However, a search for "google generation" on Google" shows 183,000 results and I've completely rewritten the article, using some of this research to create a new stub (and with none of the original article text). The term "Google generation" is even in use by the British Library, so if it gets deleted now, it's only going to be recreated later. Tyrenius 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep A Google search (how ironic!) shows that this does seem to be a term used in news headlines and such. It's already expanded beyond being a dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep this term is more widely used than I thought, it seems... Sheehan (Talk) 02:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Google at present this is essentially a dicdef of a neologism, with some examples. Yes, it's apparently widespread. But, there's nothing to really say about it, other than it refers to young people who grew up using Google. Or, Wiktionary maybe? Brillig20 03:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per tyrenius. This isn't really a neologism. Its more serious than it looks at first. Ansell 04:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I never thought about it, but when I entered college Google had just left beta, and I've been with it ever since. So keep as a member. T K E 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Google. It is worth atleast discussing but I just do not see it as being worth a whole article. SorryGuy 06:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've heard of this before, albeit under a more appropriate name, which escapes me at the moment. -Obli (Talk)? 08:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sources appear to have been added. I'd support a merge to, come to think of it. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 183,000 results on google seems notable enough. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it cites sources now, verifiable. --Terence Ong 10:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable from reliable sources (Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source, neither is number of hits on Google). Could be transwiki'd to Wiktionary, since they accept popular usage as a crieterion for inclusion. We don't. We require coverage in reliable secondary sources, otherwise it's original research. Kudos to Tyrenius for making the effort, which was undoubtedly the right thing to do, and well done for adding some sources (better than none, which so many articles have) - however, without citations, we can't keep it. Call me a policy wonk. Just zis Guy you know? 11:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you not consider the British Library, and newspapers such as the Guardian and the Telegraph to be reliable sources? They have all used this term and commented on its implications. Amongst the Google results are many usages by colleges and librarians etc, defining characteristics which relate to it, and seeing it as a phenomenon which needs to be addressed. It didn't mean anything to me, until this AfD came up. I suggest looking into it a little more thoroughly. I think it would be a credit to Wiki to provide this information, and disappointing if it doesn't. Tyrenius 12:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It's still popular usage - which makes it a dictdef, albeit a great and really comprehensively attributed dictdef. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It actually seems to have popular usage. Its not always going to be correct to judge something on whether you have heard of it or not. Ansell 13:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
As it says in Generation Y:"generations are defined not by formal process, but rather by demographers, the press and media, popular culture, market researchers, and by members of the generation themselves". There is also an article on iGeneration. Those two are proposed for a merge, and I can see the ultimate viability of merging Google Generation with them too.
Tyrenius 15:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 12:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep has sources, doesn't really fit Google Kotepho 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I have little doubt that Google likes the hit count on this self-promotional neologism just fine, given that their share values probably go up a penny per thousand hits on it. RGTraynor 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: see Yahoo and MSN if you don't trust Google. --phh 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. While I have little doubt the term could become popular at this time it is no more relevant that other entries in urban dictionary mcwiggin 15:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable enough, and an increasing number of well-read essays have tackled the "go to Google first" paradigm and its ramifications (e.g., Jeff Atwood's "Google is the Help Menu"). --phh 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is a neologism, and I frankly doubt it even merits a passing mention in Google. Fishhead64 21:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has apparently been used in by the British Library and USA Today, as is cited on the page. That, combined with the high number of Google hits, tells me it appears to be coming into use.192.5.109.49 18:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete delete delete delete delete. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - or see Tyrenius' ideas about merging. 'Google generation' has been adopted as a useful concept/phrase in Library and information science in the UK and perhaps the US too - also to discuss (an age-related) gap between those who use the net intuitively and those who don't. Some examples:
The Google generation believes that organisations can keep everything. Why take the time and effort to decide what can be deleted when electronic storage is cheap and search engines are improving? (The Times Higher Education Supplement, April 29, 2005)
Ian Mowat..... believed strongly that libraries should reinvent themselves so as to remain relevant to "the Google generation". (The Times, September 19, 2002)
William Gibson (novelist).....Perhaps the challenge of writing long-lasting literature excites him more now than being the prophet of the Google generation. (Daily Telegraph, April 12, 2003)
before the arrival of the world wide web we were obliged to go out there and discover things for ourselves........The Google generation may have a fast link to anywhere in the world ....(The Times, November 28, 2005)--HJMG 12:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Google, article is not encyclopædic on its own. Wstaffor 21:16, 18 April 2006 (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.