Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV Generation (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   keep. It's been snowing here since day 1. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

MTV Generation
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

If this page isn't a neologism I don't know what is. To quote policy, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles."

Repeated attempts, and requests (since 2007, when this article was last nominated for deletion) for reliable sources have failed to unearth a single reliable discussion of this term. I say it's time to drop this article until such time that sources can be found. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nearly 30 years after MTV started, it's not such a neologism anymore, but as coined words go, it's part of the vernacular and further discussion can be found in many places.   Mandsford 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? I quote again, "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Just because people use the term does not mean it is ready for treatment in wikipedia. Please address my criticisms.Peregrine981 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the article is a piece of crap, dating from Wikipedia's silly days when every article had to include a moronic reference to The Simpsons (I recall having to remove such nonsense from our article about Kaiser Wilhelm II). However, your statement was that the article should be removed until reliable sources could be found to discuss what is referred to as the "MTV Generation", and I think that it's an easy task.  I agree that it's frustrating when an article is kept based on promises of improvement that are never carried out.  Several of us in the discussion, including my friends DGG and S Marshall, are pretty good at bringing articles up to code.  Thanks for bringing it to the community's attention, since I believe it would have been overlooked had there not been a nomination. Mandsford 15:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! I'm sorry that it had to come to this nomination to finally get some real content into the article, but I thank you very much for doing what many of us have been unable to do for quite some time. As it stands I no longer support deletion as it seems there is some factual basis for keeping the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Can probably be expanded beyond the dicdef.  DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what people said at the AFD in 2007.... and yet here we are. The fact is that this is not a coherent term. We have yet to see any serious secondary source treatments of this concept as a real term.


 * Keep as having potential for expansion (even if it's taking some time)—for example this book has a subchapter about the concept. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to know what the author actually says about the MTV Generation. I have yet to find a book that actualy gives a coherent definition.Peregrine981 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it looks promising—a general US history book, a subchapter titled "The MTV Generation" within a chapter called "The Triumph of Consumerism, 1980–1992"—however, I just checked my library and unfortunately it does not have the book. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Reliable sources in article and elsewhere. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Where? People keep saying this, but somehow they never seem to make their way into the article. It's been years. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'sources' in the article demonstrate the neologism in use, they don't provide significant detailed coverage as required by WP:N. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article doesn't need to be deleted. It does need serious expansion as the subject has had a huge effect in the content of the television industry for decades.Trackinfo (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about MTV. This is an article about "The MTV Generation." Big difference. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, although my reasoning differs from those above. My position is that because there's a wiktionary article (wikt:MTV generation), deletion could never be appropriate.  If we decided that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article with this title, then we should have a soft redirect to Wiktionary instead--so no matter what, this title shouldn't be a redlink.— S Marshall  T/C 08:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A redirect to wiktionary strikes me as completely reasonable until serious encyclopedic content can be found.Peregrine981 (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Incidentally, it really isn't necessary to reply to every single "keep".— S Marshall  T/C 11:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to engage with the arguments of proponents. So far they are mostly repeating the same arguments made 3 years ago, cleanup, expand, etc... But it has proven impossible to do so in the intervening time. When do we draw the line and say that we get rid of this unencyclopedic article? Right now it is a fairly useless article, that is frankly an embarassment to wikipedia. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly impossible. It's just that there are  articles to edit, only 2886 of which are featured as yet. You asked when we get rid of it, and, we don't.  Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that'll never be finished.  :)— S Marshall  T/C 18:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This is an oft-used neologism that used to be a buzzword when MTV was still hot. What's next, deleting MTV?.. I can't believe Peregrine is still fixated on deleting this article, it's just odd. In fact, I may restore my old additions to the text sometime. I'm sorry, Peregrine981. Gregorik (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've just admitted it is an oft-used neologism, which wiki policy specifically says is not suitable for an article! In order to keep the article you should try to prove that it is NOT a neologism. MTV is a real company, and there's plenty of secondary literature. The comparison is absurd. As I've said before wikipedia should not be used to peddle pet theories, hearsay, and rumour. Presently all we have is just that, and that is not going to change any time soon. Proponents have been given, literally years to find suitable sources, and they failed. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to MTV, as its relevant to the MTV article but isn't notabe enough for an article of its own. The length of time this article has survived in this same state is evidence of that fact. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we deleted it we'd need to replace it with a dab page that directed readers to Generation X and Generation Y and mentioned MTV and linked to the definition on Wiktionary, but in the process we'd have lost the content on its origins and use (which aren't what dictionaries do). So deletion would be a very suboptimal way to deal with this content. So what if it's a permastub? It's sourced and reads OK, and the topic has been mentioned in 7000+ news articles, 4000+ books and 1000+ scholarly articles, so I'm pretty sure it's notable... there are sources out there that discuss this in depth, e.g., and we can mention that Bret Easton Ellis was known as the "voice of the MTV Generation". Peregrine981 could look for sources and use them instead of expecting others to do the work. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm glad that she did nominate it, and she is under no obligation to look for sources, particularly when even the people who wanted it kept were also the type that "expected others to do the work". I'm just as guilty of that-- I see that I was one of the many people in the 2007 debate who had that same "Someone-- not I-- will fix it" attitude.  But it's not 2007 anymore, and idiocy like "Lisa replies 'meh'" is no longer accepted.  Does anyone believe that the article would have been improved had it not been for the nomination?  I don't.  And for those who raise the tired old "AfD is not cleanup" homily-- meh.  In 2010, AfD is the most effective way to get the community to work together on improving Wikipedia.  Mandsford 02:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The nomination statement that "I say it's time to drop this article until such time that sources can be found" means "it is someone else's problem to look for sources." She doesn't want the article cleaned up, she wants to "purify" Wikipedia of what she thinks is a trivial subject. We should not tolerate or applaud this sort of lazy deletionism [deletion nomination]. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Edited.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When it comes to lazy, I much prefer lazy deletionism to lazy inclusionism. Mandsford 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD is not cleanup!. If you don't like how the article is, fix it yourself, or leave cleanup templates on it.  AFD is solely to determine whether an article meets our deletion criteria.  Being poorly written and sourced is not a deletion criteria.  Failing to meet wp:V or wp:Notability are.  This type of nomination is why we have to split AFD up by day and still have over 100 articles listed on each day page. Buddy431 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I had honestly tried to find serious discussions of MTV Generation, but could not find them. I am not a professional researcher. I had made many good faith efforts to try to find them, as well as encourage others to find them to no avail for a LONG time. Meanwhile all I got was assurances that Strauss and Howe had somewhere written about this, despite the fact that the only proof of this seemed to be wiki mirror sites, which continued to perpetuate the lazy, unsourced drivel that was originally included in this article. As you can see, the nomination has resulted in a much better article that finally adds something to the internet, rather than detracting. I make no apologies for the nomination, but thank everyone for help. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should learn to search better. Your inability to find sources shouldn't land others with the task. Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps every editor who has ever edited this article should, and perhaps you should stop being such a pompous prick. This is a collaborative task, not an ego stroking competition. Thanks for the constructive attitude. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This neologism has sufficient coverage in secondary sources to invalidate the nominator's reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And I thank Fences and Windows and others for adding even more in there-- well done. Mandsford 19:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But ultimately, my friends, recognize the "AfD is not cleanup" nonsense for what it is by looking at where it came from. It is nothing more than one of the many graffiti on that wall called Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, with the addition of a cute little navigational beacon (WP:CLEANUP) to make it sound official.  "AfD is not cleanup" actually needs to be listed among the arguments to avoid once the discussion has started.  Mandsford 13:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to berate inclusionists who chant "keep" without looking for or providing sources just as much as I will berate deletionists who chant "delete" without doing the same, but ultimately we should keep and improve articles on notable topics, or at least merge them, rather deleting them according to someone's personal perfectionist deadline: "The best is the enemy of the good." Other people not improving an article is not an excuse for not doing it yourself. The aim of this project is to cover every WP:NOTABLE topic, and we'll only get there by improving the poor stubs we have littering the place, not by deleting them all. As a new essay points out, deletion is a good short-term tactic for improving the quality of Wikipedia, but it can be a poor strategy for building one. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And with that, I think we can close the debate early as a WP:SNOW. I'll buy the first round of beer when we get together again.  Mandsford 20:45, 25 May 2010 (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.