Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Snowflake (3rd 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 07:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Wow I really don't know what to say. This article is just many reasons that Wikipedia is not taken seriously as a source. This article is complete trash just because many people have coined the phrase doesn't mean that it's the name of an actual generation or that it should have it's own article. The phrase is usually used by people who are actually so called "Snowflakes" calling others who don't agree with them "Snowflakes". This article should be Deleted I can't believe it's been nominated twice already it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It's not a real generation 10, 20 years down the road this isn't a term people will use. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep See Talk:Generation Snowflake/Archive 1 nominated for deletion, "and it survived that process with flying colours." at 09:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC), etc. The above merely repeats pov which has been discussed repeatedly, see Archives. Qexigator (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It has not been resolved, there is no consensus that the current state of the article is acceptable, and the "survived with flying colours" is pure inflammatory rhetoric by an editor who has consistently displayed bad faith. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Term (Generation Snowflake) seems much used and sources are sound. WP: I don't like it is not a valid reason for deletion.Xxanthippe (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete Allsportsfan's "words fail me" reaction is entirely understandable. The same people keep popping up every time the article is nominated. The fact is the article was irredeemably biased from the beginning, and any attempts to remove that bias have been resisted. Even attempts to move it to Snowflake (slang) or Snowflake (pejorative) have been resisted; this would at least give the article a chance to be an article about a slang term rather than a "kids these days" attack piece. It needs WP:TNT. The sources are mostly garbage too, just trashy op-eds and polemic pieces. In particular the pieces by Michelle Malkin and a nobody called Eleanor Halls who writes fluff pieces for GQ should not be cited as sources. Let's sort this crap out once and for all, it is entirely unacceptable that the article should be retained in its current blatantly POV, unencyclopedic state. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The references included with the article include multiple reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage,and widespread use, satisfying general notability and WP:NEO. It was kept twice in recent months, and instances of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources continue to appear. Sorry if the term offends some editors. Wikipedia is not intended to be a safe space. Edison (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe the article should contain a trigger warning to alert people of delicate disposition that it might cause offense to them? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
 * I don't find it offensive I find it ridiculous because usually the people who use the term are actually so called Snowflakes themselves. Anyways it does not belong on wikipedia because it's a term that was made up by somebody and will lose it's meaning someday. It's not notable and the sources in the article are weak and opinion pieces.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Get that line from Breitbart did you? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know what Breibart is. I find your edit summary offensive and WP:Uncivil. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Too bad. It was a fair and accurate description of your comment. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep because this article was Kept at AfD in November 2016, and again in December 2016, it is far too soon for a do-over. Also, it passes WP:NEO with secondary WP:RS considering the origin and usage.  A good deal of sentiment both in hits that pop up in searches and in these 3 COUNT THEM 3 AfDs in less than 6 months amount to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and I get why given that it is a pejorative.  But do sources support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is from the WP:NEO page: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Not to mention the sources are mostly opinion pieces that aren't reliable sources.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per prior discussions, and a gentle WP:TROUT for the nominator… — JFG talk 11:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above discussions. Jus  da  fax   23:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the fact that the article has passed two previous Afd's does not alter the fact that it is a terrible article. This is why an editor who previously had no involvement came across the article and immediately, instinctively thought it should be deleted. It was conceived as a POV article to ridicule young people and attempts to alleviate this bias by getting rid of some of the crappier sources like GQ or moving it to a more neutral title like Snowflake (slang) have been resisted by the POV pushers. "Generation Snowflake" is not a common term but a meme that was pushed by a British provocateur named Claire Fox to sell her book, with the co-operation of compliant British media like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. The actual slang term that the article should be about is "Snowflake" as used in Fight Club. Wikipedia should not be doing Claire Fox's propaganda for her. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I fact-checked your assertion that "'Generation Snowflake' is not a common term." here: is the  gNews search on snowflake + generation, ghits supports the idea that it is  a common term.  That said, your point about the article title is well taken.   Here:   is a gNews search on snowflake.  Clearly the more common use.  After the article is kept, you can start a discussion on the talk page about moving to a more neutral title like Snowflake (slang).  Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The other problem with the title is that it has become a pseudo-sociological article. This is a politicized insult, not a term used by sociologists to describe an age demographic like "baby boomers" or "the silent generation". Naturally, most of the sources that use the term "snowflake" in combination with "generation" will be sneering right wing op-ed pieces that ridicule millenials. Sources that discuss the term "snowflake" more neutrally will note its probable origin in "Fight Club" and discuss how the term evolved from criticism of parents who think their children are more unique and special than other children, to criticism of young people who grow up believing this (exemplified by people who claim to be "agender" or "gender fluid"), to criticism of college campus culture, and now a politicized insult used by Trump supporters to stereotype millennials or just liberals or protesters in general. A neutral article might provide a few op-ed links as examples, but they would not dominate the list of references, and it would definitely not link to poorly researched garbage like the GQ article. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We can make the article clear that this is a pejorative and not a cohort/generation label. Frankly, it already is rather clear in the lead. But that does not mean we need to delete it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There was already a recent page move discussion to move article to Snowflake (slang). The result was no consensus to move.. This was contested at move review but the result was endorsed. However, the move discussion result offered path forward which was to create a new article on snowflake slang (just changing the title isn't an easy fix because the current article is about generation snowflake) and once the new article is stable, start a discussion to merge generation snowflake article into snowflake (slang) article.--DynaGirl (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. After reading the article again and some of its sources, I have deduced that one characteristic of a Snowflake is that they find it intolerable that any idea that they disapprove of should receive public exposure. I am sure that there are no such people among Wikipedia editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep per nominator. Third nomination (last one in December), and not a single new argument. If this was a recreation of a deleted article it would be speedy deleted. Christian75 (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This month – April – is the sixth in a row that the article has been nominated for/as something or another... deletion, move, NPOV, etc. I've had enough, now that personal attacks are produced automatically as part of the 'discussions'. Being ground down by this to the point of giving up is not how Wikipedia should operate. The more moderate editors have already silently dropped out from editing/commenting on the article. Now, I'm out too. EddieHugh (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't leave. This discussion is clearly going to close as keep.  When I run into this sort of animus on a topic (and it happens a lot) I back off for a while, or edit a little on a non-controversial topic that I happen to know something about (cf. gleaning).  We need editors, and it would be a pity to let the sort of aggressive editors who have behaved badly here run the place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Above opinion seconded. Just let it roll off your back. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I'm abandoning further discussion of and contributions to this article – it's not worth the aggravation – but I'm not leaving Wikipedia. EddieHugh (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural comment: IP user made a poorly formatted edit with the following in the edit summary: "keep it. the article answered my curiosity as to what the term meant in a WSJ article today.ar". Cnilep (talk) 00:05, 5 April 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.