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


 * 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. Clearly no consensus to delete, although participants seem fairly unanimous in judging that the article still needs to be cleaned up and refined. This discussion has established that the page doesn't represent a POV content fork, and as far as I can tell, nobody seriously disputes that the topic meets the GNG. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Generation Snowflake
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a WP:POV fork of the Millenials article and/or the Z generation article. The entire "usage" section is just a WP:COATRACK for pop-culture pseudosociology -- pretty much every ref there is by, or cites, some talking head who throws out some anecdotes and spins a story around them. This article could stay if it were about the term, "Generation Snowflake" like Slacker is about that term. Contrast with say Me generation which is sourced to solid sociology refs. This page in WP pretends to be an encyclopedia article but all it is, is abuse of WP to perpetuate what the talking heads are spinning. It isn't sociology but it pretends to be. Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC) (amend to add Z Generation since people are confused or wikilawyering around the main point Jytdog (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Question - Would you still want to delete if the talking head/anecdote/spin/pop culture stuff were eliminated and the more solid descriptive citations (e.g. Collins, Financial Times) retained? MaxBrowne (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the article that exists and that has been strenuously argued to keep in this form, with this focus, on the Talk page. this article is a POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Suppose there were an article entitled Snowflake (pejorative) or similar - if it were in a format along the lines of "Snowflake is a slang term for....", "it may have originated from....", "it became popular in 2016 after....", "it was used by (well-known figure who promulgated the term) ....", "(credible public or academic figure) criticized the term....". All solidly sourced of course. Would such an article be acceptable to you? I think such an article would be OK, but I'm trying to understand your thinking on this. I personally don't like that the article is called Generation Snowflake, stereotyping a whole age group. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All I can tell you is read WP:POV fork - this article fits that to a T. Whatever article you have in mind doesn't exist. Jytdog (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Flawed articles can be fixed. I agree that this article has a lot of weak sources that tend to advance a particular POV (i.e. the one being pushed by the astroturfers), and also a lot of non-notable trivia. My view is that it could be an acceptable article if that was eliminated. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:TNT. I will not reply further. Vote to keep if you like; experienced editors will see this for the POV fork it is. Jytdog (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. See also Category:Pejorative terms for people. The term is not solely linked with Millenials, and is cited by some sources as being more related to Generation Z. Specious AfD in any case: the nominator stating "This article could stay if it were about the term, "Generation Snowflake" like Slacker is about that term" is the same as saying "This is a content dispute". Per policy at Deletion policy, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page... Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases... Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum... Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it." Keri (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, articles that coulda been something are deleted all the time when they become POV forks. This is what TNT is for. Jytdog (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * TNT is an essay; Deletion policy is policy. Keri (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Only some who could be classified as Millennials based on age would fit into Generation Snowflake, and only some who could be described as Generation Snowflake would be classified as Millennials, so the coverage in the GS article could not be subsumed into the M article. And, as Keri points out, the nominator's case is fatally compromised by the admission that it's some (not even all) of the content that is being objected to, not the article's existence. So, merging with Millennials is not appropriate and there's no valid reason to delete, as notability has already been established. EddieHugh (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * your !vote is as confused as the article is. it pretends to do sociology but there is not a single serious sociology source in it.  The bulk of the article - almost all the WEIGHT - is the "usage" and that whole section is a COATRACK POV fork. It needs TNT.  Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the logical flaws in your deletion arguments adds clarity to this discussion, not confusion. The article reflects the available sources, but, again, we're drifting into a content discussion, which is for the talk page, and doesn't warrant a deletion nomination. EddieHugh (talk) 13:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:POV fork. Read Deletion_policy # 7 5 .  The nomination is solid.  You are confused. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC) (whoops, it is #5.  Fixed Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC))
 * I read POV fork before voting & commenting. Generation Snowflake can't be a POV fork of Millennials, for the reasons I gave in my first comments. Deletion reason #7 is reliable sources, which was dealt with emphatically in the first deletion nomination. EddieHugh (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:EddieHugh my bad it is #5. fixed. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note the nomination has been changed. The argument is now that GS is a POV fork of Millennials, or Generation Z, or possibly both. This helps to reinforce the fact that GS is something new and that it cannot be squeezed into pre-existing categories or Wikipedia articles. EddieHugh (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep basically per Keri. Plainly notable, and I think it could be trimmed of the trivia. A rename may also be in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gut Use only serious sources. Get rid of all tabloid and tabloid-style opinion pieces, all anecdotal/spin pieces, all polemic pieces, all trivial pop culture stuff. Use opinion pieces only if referenced by reliable secondary sources to establish notability, otherwise treat the same as blog posts or tweets. There's some serious astroturfing going on around this particular narrative and wikipedia should not be indulging it. Second choice is Delete. Keep in present form is as unacceptable to me as it is to Jytdog. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and per result of recent previous AfD. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep It is really quite difficult to see why this proposal is being promoted at all. It is founded on/motivated by the false/misguided premise/assertion that the article is WP:POV fork of the Millenials article. The term (G--S--/S--G) has entered the language, and anyone wishing to have information about that should be able to find it in this standalone article, rather than be redirected to another where it is embedded, unhelpfully expanding that one. If the present version has faults of POV or overemphasis on, say Claire Fox, then let the article be revised, free from muddle with other issues in other articles. Qexigator (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep... but... This article needs stripping down to remove all the uncited/unreferenced content and information from questionable sources. Incidentally (this is relevant because this AfD itself is part of it) there's clearly some sort of slow-motion edit war going on with this article and its talk page. "Drop The Stick" clearly means nothing to some people. You don't need an AfD discussion, a Request for Comment discussion or an AN/I report to settle every single tiny dispute with an article. My advice to the people currently fighting over this article's content is to step away from editing it for a while and let someone else have a crack at it. An AfD discussion is clearly not appropriate here - it's a content dispute that you're having. Don't throw your toys out of the pram. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm undecided about keeping or deleting this article. But there should be more mention in the "Political correctness" section of the Millennials article. That could be a merge target if the outcome of this AFD is "Delete." The extreme right finds it convenient to throw this pejorative label at some millennials and dismiss, rather than address, their complaints about racism, sexism, bullying and bad political behavior. Edison (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG, and there is no POV fork here. It needs some sorting and some of the less reliable sources taking out (although most of the print media cited are solid and reliable). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * comment - I am anticipating that the closer will ignore !votes that just cite GNG and ignore the POV fork issue. Again, Content forking is a reason for deletion, and this is a blatant fork of Millenials. Even if somebody wants to say the "target" of "Generation Snowflake" is Generation Z, we again have an article about that generation.  (Millenials seems more appropriate since so many of the anecdotes are about college kids, which are not Generation Z yet, but this is beside the point).   Way too much of this article makes actual claims about whatever the generation is, based on garbage pseudo-sociological refs.   This article needs TNT because it is a content fork.  GNG has nothing to do with the nomination.   Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - With respect, GNG is not something that should be ignored when taking part in an Article for Deletion discussion. In fact, it's one of the only things that should be taken into account. Content disputes, edit wars, general disagreements between editors who seem incapable of stepping away from an article to let themselves cool down - these are not reasons for an article to be deleted. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note a POV fork can absolutely meet GNG with boatloads of refs and still be deleted because it is a POV Fork. That is why it is listed specifically as a reason for deletion and why I wrote the note above.  Jytdog (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep this is not a content fork of Millennials. Many millennials are not in the snowflake generation, and Generation Z people are. It's clearly notable, whether as a definition as generational, or as a term used. This clearly passes guidelines for inclusion 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Gut or Delete The term could be an ephemeral neologism, but the term is used in certain groups and the use of the term is meaningful in both what it means and who is using the term. Its use is bubbling on the cusp of notoriety but it still may be ephemeral, hence gut or delete. I also agree it is not a fork of Millennials because largely the sources point to a few specific use of the term. Not all examples are of young people. The term is describing their behavior. "Generation snowflake" is merely a the way conservatives can label young "snowflakes." The term largely targets people who protest to "conservative" political speech and policy. A NPOV entry would balance explanation of the descriptive use of the term, with its political significance. I think the article needs an entire rewrite with greater emphasis on preserving NPOV. 2601:282:502:4B63:518D:4640:222:E976 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC) — 2601:282:502:4B63:518D:4640:222:E976 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: Based on IP location info this post was most likely written by and should not be dismissed as the view of a SPA. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is correct. MHP Huck (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...An editor who has made few edits outside this topic. Keri (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An editor who hasn't ever found something this ridiculous on the site, you mean. Keri is deeply POV and not credible given their collective actions. Most of the articles I'd add too require complete overhauls and I don't have time for that. Most relate to under appreciated economists. MHP Huck (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON, as the only result in Google Books is ''I Find This Offensive!". If this were a serious concept, I'd expect it to be covered by psychologists or other social science scholars. Right now the article is filled with trivia based on pop culture-like sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason. There is no requirement for the sources to be books. The article has an abundance of reliable sources, principally from the broadsheet press. EddieHugh (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Eddie; this is a neologism, "a relatively new or isolated term, word, or phrase that may be in the process of entering common use, but that has not yet been fully accepted into mainstream language [...] often directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event." See for example Category:Neologisms, Category:Words coined in the 2000s and Category:Words coined in the 2010s. Keri (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The pile-on begins. Whether or not it is a valid reason to delete I'm not sure but the majority of these 'reliable sources' are the result of Claire Fox plugging her book, with a bit of pop culture crap thrown in. My feeling is the article could be OK if it is decrapified, but I'd rather see it deleted than kept in present form. Edit: wikipedia should not be doing Spiked/Insitute of Ideas propaganda for them. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. In spite of the extensive rewriting, the article remains confusing--many of the refs seem to be about problems with the current generation and not specifically calling it Generation Snowflake.  And article would be appropriate, but it would better be done by rewriting from scratch.  DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The refs are all fairly explicit in their use of the neologism "Generation Snowflake". And using AfD and deletion to solve a content issue is rather extreme - particularly as this will circumvent whatever consensus currently exists and the outcomes of RfCs. Those issues and arguments will just be edit warred over and rehashed once again. Deleting will not, and should not be used to, resolve a content dispute. Keri (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Question - to those in favour of deletion, would you still favour deletion if the article looked something like this? MaxBrowne (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a reasonable compromise, and not dissimilar to other articles about 21st century neologisms. Keri (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think so too. I would also support a change of name to snowflake (neologism).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In terms of suggested name changes, I like Wehwalt's suggestion of snowflake (neologism) better than snowflake (pejorative) as all usages do not appear strictly pejorative. Many of them are, but the earlier usages aren't, and with the use of this term quickly evolving, it's unclear that the future usage will be strictly pejorative. --DynaGirl (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Further discussion of content and titles is welcome, but the article's talk page is the place for that. Perhaps MaxBrowne could make his proposal there, with a rationale that clearly delineates what he thinks would qualify a source for inclusion or exclusion (his current sandbox suggestion contains plenty of sources that look like the opinion pieces I thought were the target of the "gut" concept, so clarification would be useful). EddieHugh (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am not proposing my sandbox version as a final version, just saying it would be an improvement on the current article. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - unless it can be established that "generation snowflake" is a genuine sociological phenomenon rather than a meme being promoted by British and American libertarian organizations (or "think tanks") as part of a wider pro-corporate agenda. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Only one bite of the cherry at a time; will you strike your !vote above? Keri (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the article is not about a "sociological phenomenon" – it is about a neologism. They are not the same at all. Keri (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why must you reply to ever opinion that doesn't match your own? MaxBrowne (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Typical bad faith I've come to expect from you. Look up and see who else, and how many times, has replied to comments. Keri (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When you stop maliciously reporting people for a single revert, or just for making edits you don't agree with, then come talk to me about bad faith. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2017 (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.