Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (4th 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 (no consensus) Ryttaren (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Generation Z

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Previous Noms
 * Articles for deletion/Generation Z
 * Articles for deletion/Generation Z (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Generation Z (3rd nomination)

Delete. Okay, I know this article has been on AfD three times now, but it needs another go on here really. Firstly, it does not cite any sources. It is also a neologism. Plus it really, really isn't notable. It is two lines long, so a rewrite really isn't in order, it makes more sense to delete. Also, the whole point of these Generation things (e.g. Generation X, Baby Boomer Generation etc) is that each Generation was predicted, and then when it reached adulthood, it was shown to have certain characteristics (like Generation Y is meant to be tech savvy due to the internet and games consoles). But we shouldn't make an article based solely on this tiny prediction (WP:CRYSTAL). And it's definition is poor anyway, "Generation Z is the generation that follows Generation Y, beginning very roughly at the end of Generation Y." What the hell is that? No time frame or anything. Yes, I know that the last two AfDs on this failed, but I looked at the article when it was nominated the last time and it has significantly changed since then, and not in any good way. I therefore propose it is deleted. Deamon138 (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a blindingly shining example of WP:CRYSTAL point 2. JJB 16:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I keep coming across articles up for deletion like this, where my initial impression is "sounds like a bullshit topic", but then I do a little research and find that it isn't.  This term, not to mention the concept, has received more than a dozen mentions in the press in the last month alone (Google News).  Further, everything I read about Generation Y shows that most commentators place its end some time in the last 10 years, making a "post-Y" generation a very real thing, though exactly what to call it has not yet solidified.  Wikipedia has several articles on the post-Y generation, in fact (Generation V, Generation Einstein, Google generation, Internet generation, Generation C), each documenting a different name for the post-Y generation being batted around by media commentators.  So I view this article and those others with an eye toward eventual merge (but that's a matter for editorial work, not snap judgments) -- and an obvious keep, expand, add sources for now.--Father Goose (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of names for a class of people that itself hasn't defined who or what they are is evidence that there is no universally acceptable term for that group. This would indicate each of these terms are neologisms that haven't entered common parlance because they were only used once by an uncreative news anchor. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The absence of a universally acceptable term for something does not preclude our having an article on the something. And the use of the specific term "Generation Z" by The Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, The Herald Sun, CNN, CBS News, and BBC News in just the last few months suggests it is quite a bit more than a neologism used only once by an uncreative news anchor.  Reassess your position, as even a little bit of research shows it to be unfounded.--Father Goose (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ERM, most of those articles are pop culture articles, not scholarly verifiable articles. I mean Hannah Montana? Fujifilm? Are you serious? That just shows it's an advertising gimmick to sell products to young children surely, and most advertising gimmick phrases tend to be neologisms. Deamon138 (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, most of those articles only use the term in passing: that is original research. Deamon138 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's an obvious violation of WP:NEO, which says sources must define a term, not use it. Arguing that usage helps identify notability is also a poor argument, since we must have sources to write an article. Without somebody else discussing a term first, we can't simply insert our own personal interpretation and this is why we have guidelines like WP:NEO and WP:SYN. After reassessing my position, I don't believe I'll be changing my opinion on the matter. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Generation Y. While it seems to me this is a real topic (there have been a few articles discussing it in recent years, as Father Goose's link above shows), there's not really enough to say about it for a separate article. It would be better kept as a subsection of the Generation Y article (saying, basically 'the generation after Generation Y will be Generation Z. Not much is yet known about this generation.') until there is more to say about them. Terraxos (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge - This is mostly unsourced original research with no real evidence demonstrating the usage of this nonnotable protologism. I'm looking forward to the day when people will stop creating new Generation X/Y/Z articles in advance of new generations because we'll have run out of letters by then. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO says, "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." Well Generation Z says that its members have not known a war without the War on Terror (started in 2001 of course), so the earliest Generation Z person to be born must've been born around 1997 at the earliest to only remember 9/11 and Afghanistan that followed etc. So it would seem that such a term could not have been coined until 2001 at the VERY earliest, but more likely much later. This term is therefore a neologism, and it doesn't matter if Google News uses it a dozen times in the last month, as that definition of neologism shows, it can still be one. Besides, it also is still crystal-balling. At most, this generation can have members of 11yrs old at most, but more likely 6/7yrs old. It is a prediction that this generation will have similar characteristics like past ones have done, but what characteristics then? All it says is they have never lived without the WoT. So? All the rest of the generations were hypothesized AFTER they had matured, like mine (gen Y) is known as tech-savvy, because of what has happened with the web. No-one could've known about the insane growth of the internet in 1989, the year I was born, or really even a few years later. Plus Father Goose (above) mentions "Generation V, Generation Einstein, Google generation, Internet generation" as post-generation Y topics. However, surely these are the same as gen Y? They are all tech-savvy, which is what gen Y is as well. The defining characteristic of a post-generation Y can't be that its tech savvy, as that is already the one for Y If this article doesn't get deleted, at the very least it must be merged with Generation Y, along with those quoted by Father Goose. They are effectively different words for the same thing. Deamon138 (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A delete !vote is implicit in the opening deletion rationale. You might want to consider changing this duplicate !vote to a "comment" or appending it to your opening statement above.--Father Goose (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay sorry, sorted now. Deamon138 (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To address the argument you present here itself: here is one reliable source after another defining the term "Generation Z" (not just using it) and ascribing various, generally consistent characteristics to it. This is the kind of subject we write articles about on Wikipedia.  I agree -- as I said above -- that the other terms for this same phenomenon (the post-Y generation) should be merged together into one article, though, again, mergers are done through editorial action, not pronouncements handed down by a handful of commentators at an AfD.  Which of the articles should be the mergeto target?  I dunno -- maybe Generation Z itself; I haven't researched the other names yet.  Nonetheless, this is clearly a notable subject, with a fairly consistent definition used by multiple reliable sources, and we should have an article which describes what those sources have to say about the subject.--Father Goose (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And those sources are just from the first few pages of Google News' listings: there are dozens more that follow. Additionally, here are three books that can be used for source material; again, a limited sampling of what can be found via Google Books.--Father Goose (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay let's look at the sources you quoted: Looking at all those sources, it seems that the term isn't notable enough, and even if you disregard that and the fact that it's a neologism and all the crystal-balling, I have shown that these sources don't even agree on the date it started, and often get confused between this and generation Y. Deamon138 (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first source says only this, "Generation Z (also sometimes referred to as Generation V, for Virtual), is less important to most small businesses, as they are younger and not yet independent consumers." It doesn't define the term firstly. Also, it clearly shows the term isn't notable as it says less important!
 * The next source, while seeming detailed, is actually flawed beyond compare. Firstly, it talks about them never having known a world without mobile phones, and growing up in a world without technology. However, as I said, that is endemic of Generation Y, not Z. It quotes the former editor of a magazine Total Girl, which I'm not sure is reliable. It also says, "They're Generation Z, born from 1995 onwards, the latest generation made up of today's babies and children. " Well according to our article on Gen Y, 1995 was part of that generation. In fact, this article says it specifically relates to the WoT, which I fail to see relating to '95 seeing how it started in 2001 and all. It doesn't make much sense to predict a new generation from 1995 anyway, as fa as I'm aware, the birth rate in the West isn't discrete, but continuous, so there should be a slow change between generations, unless specifically noted that this newest lot is any different to their predecesors. I mean, what kind of prediction is this, "even though some Gen Z children have not been born yet." How do they know? How do they know that some huge event wo't take place tonight or whenever they said that? Later on it's said, "When the Baby Boomers start to die off, the housing market could well be flooded with sales." No, when they die off, the next generation, who are just as numerous since there were more parents around to have more children, will still be able to get houses. There won't suddenly be a decrease in the population because one generation dies off. Apparently also, economic problems will, "make them a little more measured, reserved and conservative." Erm, but during all past economic problems, (most notably the Wall street crash, people have become more left wing or at least more radical in reaction.
 * I didn't get the free trial for the third source, but from the lead that I could see, it only mentioned generation Z in the title (neologism again), and from the rest of the title, seemed like it was going to focus on software for young children, so probs no more mentions. Besides, children growing up with computers? Where have I heard that before? Ah yes, generation Y.
 * Source 4: "they wield incredible consumer power because they tend to influence the bulk of decisions of the adults in their lives." Children have always yielded considerable power. And it mentions technology again (dealt with). And it says they have lots of relatives. That doesn't define them, it says we have big extended families, it isn't necessary to have an article of these families children. The article also says they are born in the 1990s, which differs with other to source 2 which said they were 1995-future.
 * This is heavy crystal-balling, and doesn't really talk about gen Z much, more talking about the future of advertising. Technology thing again as well. It does say that, "61 percent of children 8-17 have televisions in their rooms", but 17 year olds were born in 1991, and are 7 year olds not part of Generation Z? Another conflict of dates.
 * Article 6.Your joking right? This is about BABIES and designer clothes! It doesn't make predictions, or tell us what these babies are like, only that they are generation Z, and some parents like to dress them in expensive clothes. How can we have an article on a generation that can have no collective personality, since I don't think there's anyone that will infer a babies future personality at that age.
 * Again, need a trial for this and I cba. Still it says they begin in 1990 (another conflict with those others you mentioned). And the technology thing again rears it's ugly head. It also is perfect for showing that it is indeed a neologism as, "Generation Z is not yet defined in the dictionary," yet generation Y is, so it must be a neologism.
 * Okay this one uses 1996 as its start point. It also includes the wonderful comment, "Realistically it's still too early to say how society will shape this generation", backing up my crystal ball claim.
 * This one again focuses on the technology thing (what's with that, these terms need to be consistent).  As for gen Z not knowing what Microsoft or Sony are, the writers of that are stupid. They really really do. (unless of course it's the babies like that other article that make up gen Z, in which case fair enough).
 * This final one copies a lot from source 7 that you gave. I also like the comment, "This group's preferred method of Internet searching is to start with a Google search, even if that may not be the most efficient or fastest means to the answer." So what do older people who weren't brought up in the age of the internet do? Oh that's right. The most efficient way to find something is google, as shown by it's popularity. Stupid comment really.
 * okay, the link to google books you provided, showed that only books 3, 7 and 9 are related to the subject, and if that trend continues, then there will be only 63/64 books on this, but probs much less considering that searches get less relevant as you go further away.


 * Keep. Whether or not Generation Z is defined or not, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for there to be Generation X, Generation Y, and no Generation Z. I tried to strip the article down to a bear minimum that was true. Since it passed the last AfD, it had drifted to the point of lots of original research and was generally crap. The article is intentionally vague! There is little information on Generation Z, so the Wikipedia page can only have the information that is out there. I suggested in the discussion thread that this article be maintained as a stub while we wait for more information on the topic. Generation Z is as yet ill-defined, because it is so young. But it does exist, and it will exist, and its absence will be a glaring hole on Wikipedia, because people from Generation Z are soon going to reach the point where they will recreate the missing article on them. I am in favor of merging the other articles on Generation Z into this article, like Generation V. Kevin143 (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's a concern, then where's Generation A, B, C, etc? That answer, of course, is that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Just because the letter Z follows Y doesn't mean that it's incredibly important for us to create an article for it as a placeholder in case anything important happens. If it's being kept vague on purpose, why have it at all? The surest way to prevent OR from creeping into an article is to eliminate articles on poorly defined topics. Further to the point about the imminent arrival of information about this subject: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't keep articles on events or subjects that haven't happened yet or are not yet notable. When they become notable, then we create them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is important that the post Gen Y generation has a presence on Wikipedia... this should be a keep, eventually to be merged with the other articles on this generation. For now, let's keep the article and slowly expand it and add sources. Ingenium (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's only important for such a Generation to have a presence on Wikipedia, if there's any evdience that such a generation is notable. At the moment there is none. Plus, you want to keep this article, expand on it, THEN merge it? That doesn't make any sense. If you want to merge it, you merge it straight away, and improve the article in its new found merged location, you don't wait around till some undetermined time and merge then. Deamon138 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not much on this at present but I don't think that means it should be deleted. I'd say the time periods for the generations x, y and z are all pretty woolly with no real timescale logic.Alex Marshall (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just thought I'd show why this topic isn't notable yet. I did a Google test. Googling "Generation Z" gives 218,000 results . Sounds enough to be notable right? Wrong. A lot of those are actually things completely unrelated to this topic (e.g. Generation Z cameras or something). It would be reasonable to assume that any page mentioning this topic would also mention it's preceding generation i.e. generation Y. Here's what you get for "generation Y" and "generation Z": 6,420 results . That is a huge decrease. Further evidence for it's non-notability comes when you search for "generation z" and terrorism (i.e. the topic they are apparently associated with. This gives just 7,110 results . It is hardly notable or worthy of a place in Wikipedia, maybe it will be in a few years, but we do not keep placeholders in Wikipedia for neologisms! Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deamon138 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article describes a concept which exists (f.x. being used in news reports and yielding thousands of relevant hits on Google), making Wikipedia a better place for information seekers. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Thousands" of hits isn't notable when it comes to Google hits, try hundreds of thousands of hits. Besides, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collector of information for "information seekers". Plenty of concepts exist, but we only write about them if they're notable. I'm a bigger inclusionist than most people, but this has to go. Deamon138 (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not using news reports and thousands of relevant Google hits to argue "notability", I'm using them to show that the concept exists. I would like Wikipedia to be as good as possible for information seekers, regardless of it's current status. Please don't take for granted that your views on what "we" write about are universally shared. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course the concept exists, no one is arguing that. The main argument is that it is a neologism. Remember Wikipedia doesn't write about every concept that exists, only those that are notable, and this one isn't. Deamon138 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a neologism that is at least 10 years old and widely used by professional journalists and other writers. It's well within our standards for being both an established term and established subject in the outside world.  A lot of your arguments seem to be against the way all these writers have been using the term; that is not our job here at Wikipedia.  Our job is to summarize what these writers have been saying about the subject.  Even if they're engaging in crystalballery, it's our job to describe the predictions they've made, as it is factual for us to do so. WP:CRYSTAL only applies to speculation done by individual Wikipedia editors, as that is a form of original research.  WP:OR does not apply to what professional writers have said about a given subject.  In fact, disputing what they have written using personal arguments happens to be an actual example of OR.--Father Goose (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is no point in deleting the Generation Z article now when it will only have to be recreated in a few years time when the Post-Y generation really starts to define itself. --Candy-Panda (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't know that it will have to be recreated in a few years time, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Deamon138 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous two AfDs. Furthermore, this needs to have links to those three AfDs (improper nom to begin with).  — BQZip01 —  talk 21:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it needs links to the previous AfDs, (is this some kind of policy I didn't know about, sorry), but if you've seen the last two, then surely you could've linked them? Besides I specifically stated at the start of my nomination that the article has declined in content since then. The fact, therefore, that it survived two previous nominations means nothing. The article has changed, and the previous AfDs were based on significantly better content. Articles can change, and consensus can change. Instead of saying "keep per previous AfDs", provide arguments as to why YOU think it should be kept. Deamon138 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) (Also note that someone has deleted Generation Einstein which is a synonym for this article's name)
 * Deamon, my apologies; I could have been more clear. The nomination script effed up, no reflection on you. My comment was directed as a warning that something might be messing up. I've been looking around to see how it works, but I haven't found out how. I'll just place links at the top, if that's ok with you? While the article has indeed changed, the basic content is fine and meets minimal notability and reliability standards. — BQZip01 —  talk 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To summarize my logic, a bad article is not a reason to delete. The article needs improvement, but it will grow as Wikipedia grows. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge I think this article as well as Generation_C and Internet_generation all refer to the same age group of people and as a result that all 3 articles could be improved by being merged. I feel that having articles on this generation is a good idea but that they should all be in one single article. This issue seems to be less a matter of if the subject is notable or appropriate and more about it's name. I think a merge between all the articles about this generation would be the best choice. I feel that if the articles were merged then the article could be dealt with in a much clearer manner and the idea of cleaning it up to make it encyclopedic would be much more approachable %% -SYKKO- %% (talk to me) 09:43, 6 July 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.