Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of generations


 * 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 No Consensus.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

List of generations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The mother of all problems, in terms of generations. It's really sad to see how this table, for example, gets placed on an important page, such as that of the Beat Generation. Looks like many others have expressed concern about this. Seems like the time to act has come. Dylanfly 17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that these classifications aren't in suficiently widespread use to warrant an article, or do you dislike the article for some other reason? If they are reasonably well-known terms then it seems an obvious keep to me. Though it may have its shortcomings at the moment, it is potentially a very worthwhile and interesting article. I would say, though, that it ought to be renamed to make it clear that it's about Western, primarily American, culture. Matt 02:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC).


 * Speedy Keep Not even close to a valid rationale. Possibly this user meant to delete template:generations?  There's already a discussion about the deletion of that template: Templates for deletion.  If the argument is that this is pseudoscience then indeed the response is to label it as such.  Deletion for something as widely discussed and referenced as this is not an option. --JayHenry 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment we don't have any real precedent for pseudo-social science, a much less definable term than pseudo-science, which is difficult enough. What the article needs is some NPOV. Perhaps now that it has gotten some attention this can be done. It's not the labeling that is needed exactly, its the references showing what is thought of it. I've discussed the template at the TfD. DGG' (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment.Agree with JayHenry's point about the nom, but Jay you yourself have not provided a valid rationale for keeping. You reference "deletion for something as widely discussed and referenced as this...", but what exactly is "this?"  Are you seriously arguing that this "list of generations" is widely discussed?  In what reliable sources is this list discussed?  Not the concept of generations, but the list we have developed here.  That is, how is this not original research?  Most of this list is based upon the generational theories of Strauss and Howe, but they are amply, amply covered in a series of articles as you are well aware.  This list does little more than amplify that coverage.  Since it violates WP:OR (see my comment below) you have not provided a rationale for keep, much less for speedy keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you stop to think about that assertion, you might find that it's somewhat out of sync with how we deal with lists on Wikipedia. Per WP:LIST, we create them for navigation and information.  This is a very obvious navigational tool for someone who is interested in looking at different pop-culture theories about generations.  But this is no more original research than List of cocktails.  I mean, I've never read a newspaper or scholarly paper that talks about that list of cocktails, but if you try to delete it, I think you'd find yourself troutslapped.  I've read about cocktails, and it's a valid navigational and informational tool to have the list -- there is no doubt in my mind that the articles linked are actual cocktails, and if they are not real cocktails, then I am confident Wikipedia's policies will delete the hoaxes.  Exactly the same here.  This is valid for navigational and informational purposes.  There is no original research, so long as only theories that purport to describe generations are included and as long as the dates are cited (which they generally are in the articles).  It's not original research to say "X is a generation, Y is a generation, therefore X&Y are both generations."  And it's not original research to say 1921 comes before 1922.  Other problems can be hashed out on a talk page. --JayHenry 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nom did not really provide a good rational for deletion, but there is an excellent one--this article, like the template folks have mentioned, violates WP:OR and also WP:SYN.  In particular look at the "List of Generations Chart."  Where does that come from?  It is obviously not based on any reliable sources.  Like the whole article it is a mish-mash of Strauss and Howe and, well, other stuff.  None of it is cited.  Who decided that the Beat Generation was a "sub-generation" and of what is it a sub-generation?  Same goes for every other "sub-generation."  Obviously someone just made this all up out of whole cloth. The chart is pure, unadulterated OR (thus we get howlers like the idea that the Interbellum Generation--that article itself is pure OR and should be AfD'd--is a group whose main "notable occurence", whatever that means, was the "Roaring Twenties" and not the Great Depression).  AfD is not a vote, and keep voters must respond to the point that this violates WP:OR or deletion is a must.  Most of this is related to Strauss and Howe and we already have a bunch of articles on their theories, so this "list" article (which because of its very listish nature deserves particular scrutiny) serves as little more than an internal link farm for Strauss and Howe related articles.  The Japanese-American generations are thrown in too, but we already have articles on them, and they seem to be included simply because there are names for, and therefore articles on, these generations and therefore they can be put in a list (prove me wrong an add in a bunch of other generations for other "hyphenated" Americans).  If someone can explain to me what useful purpose this serves and how this does not violate our core policies on original research and synthesis I'll reconsider my comment, but I'm skeptical that anyone will be able to do that.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if "someone just made this all up" then that's obviously quite a different matter. However, the nomination made no mention of this. Maybe it should be renominated with a clearer explanation (or, indeed, any explanation at all) of the alleged grounds for deletion. Matt 02:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed that a strong rationale was not provided by the nominator, but I have provided one based upon the policies of WP:OR and WP:SYN. The fact that the nominator did not offer these rationales does not matter really, they are now on the table and should be addressed, so given that you voted keep before these policies were brought up perhaps you can address them now, along with JayHenry.  I think I explained why I think this violates our policies against original research and synthesis but if you want me to clarify I can do that.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated (more or less), I only voted "keep" on the condition that these terms and the classification thereof have some reasonably widespread recognition. If it's just someone's personal invention then I completely agree with you, though I have no opinion on whether it is or isn't. I just think it would be clearer for someone coming to this page afresh to have this clearly stated upfront as the reason for the nomination, rather than having to read through other people's comments to find it. Matt 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Agreed, again, that the nom could have provided a better rationale, but it's not uncommon in AfD debates for stronger rationales for deletion to be provided later which is what, I would argue, has happened here. Just looking at this article, I think you should be able to tell that it is indeed someone's (or multiples editors) personal invention, and though you say you have "no opinion" on the question you certainly should since you have taken the time to comment in this AfD.  Strauss and Howe are obviously used though not cited, but a lot of other stuff is too, and no sources whatsoever are provided.  As I said the chart at the end is particularly egregious.  To take just one example, the Beat Generation (which in fact is not at all a generation as is obvious from the article--it refers to a small group of writers and artists) is listed as a "subset" of something called Generation Jones.  This is quite hilarious, because the Beats were born in the 1920s or earlier, while "Generation Jones" "describes people born between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s" according to the article.  The idea that the former is a subset of the latter is thus patently ridiculous, and quite indicative of the fact that this sloppy piece of OR was invented by folks here at Wikipedia.  No reliable source would list a group from the 1920s as being a "subset" of a group from the 1950s, and no reliable sources have been used to construct this article.  If you agree with these points (particularly after reviewing WP:OR), I would suggest you change your vote to "delete" which is considered a perfectly acceptable practice.  If you disagree perhaps you could provide more detailed rationale for your keep vote.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete The idea of a link to different terms (most with their own articles) about which groups fall in which "generations" is an excellent navigational tool. In more capable hands, this would be a strong keep.  However, this needs some major revisions, and I won't mind a bit if "delete" wins out.  The concept is good.  The execution is not.  #1 is that this is completely unsourced, which is inexcusable; "The Greatest Generation" is a term that, most people know, was popularized by Tom Brokaw in his book of the same name; in fact, ALL of these generations were named by sociologists, journalists, and historians in published works.  #2 is that, because this is unsourced, author seems to have drawn from one source or perhaps even personal opinion.  Few would agree that the "Baby Boomers" were only born between "1943 and 1950" only.  I like the organization of the list, but the accuracy and neutrality of this one are so questionable that it doesn't belong until an accurate list can be put up.  Mandsford 14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Keep but Cleanup and Cite. This is a difficult one, since the current article is completely uncited and needs a rewrite to give itself context.  The problem is that every one of these "generation" terms is used not only popularly but in Sociology, often compared and contrasted with each other.  In other words, this article is a breakdown of terminology used in a major educational discipline.  Notability is not an issue, OR issues can be addressed in the article, so the major problem here is citation even though I'm absolutely certain that there is a wealth of scholarship on the subject of 20th/21st century generations.  Possibly a quick fix would be to start raiding the citations of the individual generation articles?  -Markeer 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Markeer's comments; the article/list is notable for inclusion in my opinion, but it needs a rewrite, and many, many citations to back it up. Zidel333 15:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep a valid organizational chart, though I think there might be an argument for *some* editing cleanup, I don't see it as inherently broken.   It could possibly stand to be renamed as list of "American generations" or some such since the focus is US-centric, but that's another matter.  I do not see this as OR or SYN since there's no conclusion inherently being made here.  This could, and should, just be an organizational list, nothing more.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per lack of sources that tie all these generations together.  As of now, this list is completely WP:OR Corpx 17:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd only need a source tying them together if the intent of this page was to create some theory of generations, which I do not see as inherent to the concept of this page. One need only note that the concept of named generations does exist.  The only part I have a concern with is the chart at the end, which uses some odd names in a few places.  That might merit removal or cleanup of that section.  But the prior paragraphs are acceptable.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the chart is questionable, particularly since the linking names (second column) don't even point to trend articles of the same name. But that just means remove that column, and possibly the "experienced" column at the end since that area may suggest influences that aren't necessarily in evidence. No reason to throw out an article for two columns of a chart. -Markeer 19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks perfectly reasonable to me and a handy reference. Sources can always be added. If kept I recommend changing the title to move it out of "List of ..." namespace, which just like "...in popular culture" is a magnet for AFD nominations. 23skidoo 23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as undue emphasis on fringe social science. The article on the theory says all that is needed. Most of the "generations" are terms unique to the creator and his few disciples. The only ones for which there are independent sources are the few that were invented by others and widely adopted and have and deserve major articles, such as Generation X. Everything else is in-world, if the term can be used for non-fiction.
 * I do agree that this is unlike the other "List of ...articles " The others are about principal things that fundamentally have a very notable existence--whether or not the individual items in the list do. List of characters in X implies that at least X is a really important work--otherwise we do and should delete them. That the theory is appropriately given the one or two articles it deserves is no reason for a list of the details. DGG (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Clean Up. This is encyclopedic material, but some sources would be a welcome addition.  Useight 02:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename List of generations in the USA. 132.205.44.5 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Seems to serve a purpose per WP:LIST, but is unsourced. Personally I think the concept of the 'generation' is nonsense anyway but we don't choose what our sources choose to make notable...-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete is unsourced and sort of vague.Harlowraman 00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I don't even know where to begin. Surely much of this is salvageable, but not necessarily in this one centralized location. Umm... wow. JPG-GR 03:42, 12 August 2007 (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.