Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweener Generation


 * 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. article has significantly changed during the AFD rendering some of the comments inapplicable, there consensus cannot be determined.  MBisanz  talk 03:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Tweener Generation

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

Contested prod. No source attesting that the first sentence of the article, which says "commonly referred to" is true. At best, it is a term whose use is marginal. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are a few good google news hits.  There are many many more google hits, but their quality is difficult to judge.  I am neutral on the question of whether it should be kept, but if it is, then it desperately needs cleanup and more reliable references.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 16:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Read the 1996 cover article written by Andrea Stone who I believe coined the term. I am checking with her now. URL http://www.tweeners.org/usatoday.htm) I have added quite a few sources. I will also add the NIH statistics for birth rates. archiemartinArchie Martin (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The term is in use although it is not as common as Boomer or Gen X. The article could use some work but its noteworthy. NoVomit (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Change to redirect. An article by the name of Generation Jones already covers this generation. NoVomit (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The Generation Jones article states that it comes just before this one, albeit with one year of possible overlap. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A. Generation Jones Does not cover this topic in the least. Redirect would negate the entire purpose of article and said definition which needs correction in the first place. Generation Jones only discusses years up to 1965 and covers social, economoic and politcal areas without relation to etymology and birth rates. It does not even attempt to cover birth rates, which are at the academic fundamental core of the Baby Boom by literal definition. Further, the term, "Generation Jones" is not widely used. This article does not relate to the Tweener Generation as these years of birth rate drops from 1964 - 1968 are not covered nor is the American use terminology or definition.


 * Delete This article certainly should be deleted, the term "Tweener" is a term commonly used to refer to those who are between childhood and adolescence, and is almost never used to describe those between Boomers and Xers. The only real basis for this mistaken claim is that there was one article (in USAToday) in 1996 using this term, but it never caught on at all. Claiming current common usage for a term because it was used once 12 years ago is laughable, and a slap in the face of Wikipedia. Its very rare usage in this context now certainly doesn not warrent a an article in this or any encyclopedia.  There is a term which did catch on to describe those "between" the Boomers and Xers--Generation Jones, which is absolutely commonly used now. Of course the Generation Jones article covers this topic.  Birth rates have nothing to do with generations.  The only generation ever defined by birth rates was the original flawed defintion of the Baby Boom Generation.  The reason that so many generational experts no longer use that orignial flawed definition of the Boomer generation was specifically because of this realization that demographic boom in births included two distinct generations. Generations are about formative experiences, not birth rates. This completely misinformed Tweener article should be deleted or re-directed to Generation Jones page.TreadingWater (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, read original archive from USA TODAY - see link below and abstract.

Title: Stuck between generations Not boomers, not Xers, they are Tweeners [FINAL Edition] USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext) - McLean, Va. Author: 	Andrea Stone Date: 	Mar 22, 1996 Start Page: 	01.A Section: 	NEWS Text Word Count: 	1333 Abstract (Document Summary)

Baby boomers were born from 1946 through 1964. But the spotlight has always seemed focused on older boomers, those 40 to 50 now. In the mid-'90s, they're starting to fret about retirement and aging. Tweeners, a few of whom even have parents who are boomers, just can't relate.

Despite such differences, the more than 20 million Tweeners aren't recognized as a separate generation. They are counted among the 75 million baby boomers. Yet many are closer in age to Generation Xers who were born from 1965 through 1976. But that designation doesn't feel right, either.

Like the oldest boomers, Tweeners ``are a transitional group,'' [Walker] Smith says. Those born in the late 1940s share a sense of duty and community with the G.I. generation. But, like other boomers, they also stress individuality. That combination of values leaves many older boomers torn about balancing family and career, even though their generation launched the women's movement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission

LINK for USA TODAY Archive for March 22, 1996: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/16394756.html?dids=16394756:16394756&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+22%2C+1996&author=Andrea+Stone&pub=USA+TODAY+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&edition=&startpage=01.A&desc=Stuck+between+generationsNot+boomers%2C+not+Xers%2C+they+are+Tweeners —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiemartin (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

archiemartinArchie Martin (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've heard of the term "tweener" before but only as a marketing demographic, not as a generation. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename (maybe to Tweener (age group)). The article needs major cleanup, but I believe it meets inclusion requirements.  The article contains material that deserve to be in its own article rather than the Preteen one, since this article can focus specifically on the term "tweener" as opposed to the group in general.  The current name is not appropriate because, as Jason Quinn points out, tweeners are an age group, not a single generation&mdash;you can remain a "baby boomer" or a "gen-Xer" for your whole life, but you can only be a tweener for a couple years.  I think the article needs to be cleaned up, renamed, and given a prominent link (either a hatnote, or a link in the first sentence, such as "Tweener is a term used to refer to children in the preadolescent stage of development]]" or whatever. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 17:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

1) this is a commonly used term for those between Boomers and Xers (truth: almost no one uses this term that way) 2) the term is used to describe those born 1964-1968 (truth: I couldn't find one such use ever anywhere on Google) 3) that this cohort is also called "Genex-Boomers" (truth: not one reference to Genex-Boomers anywhere ever on Google) In other words, this was written by someone who had his own unusual ideas about a use of a term that he'd like to see, so he writes a Wikipedia article pretending that the term is used that way, and fills it with clearly false information and claims. Bad faith.  If you want to start using a term this way, go ahead and use it this way; for example, find a small blog who will repeat your views.  But don't undermine the credibility of a great resource like Wikipedia with this nonsense. I resent people who exploit Wikipedia's open editing approach by trying to introduce a new usage of a term by pretending it already is used that way.  The best answer to bad faith efforts like this is to delete such articles promptly.TreadingWater (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Further, this article was written with bad faith and isn't even close to meeting Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. The article was written trying to claim that
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  21:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki to Wikitionary is acceptable. This only defines the word, but doesn't do much else. It is only a duplication of information in Preadolescence, and Tween is a disambiguation page that lists wikitionary. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a commonly used term. Examining the article sources for "common usage"; one of the sources is from 1996, and of the two modern ones one is some guy's celebrity gossip blog. not a reliable source. It obviously hasn't caught on; back to the sociology drawing board, then. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand Tweeners They're Just Yuppies Who Live the Sensible Life. Los Angeles Times, 1988.  The concept tweener has a history that should be included in Wikipedia. --Jmundo (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is not for "tweener", this is for "tweener generation". Tweener has already been deemed as a neologism. And that is a different use of the term "tweener" than the current use, which would cause even more problems. Hence, Wiktionary allows for the organization of different definitions. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy, rename to Tweener (age group). The article already talks about the different use of the term. The source talks about the term, not just use the term, per WP:NEO.--Jmundo (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A few sources does not pass the criteria under WP:NEO, especially when there are already other terms (such as preadolescent). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/delete/whatever: this AfD is a mess. Prior to the start of this AfD, this article was about a purported generation between the baby boom generation and generation X, for which there are a few links (although as indicated above, the article Generation Jones would already seem substantially to cover that).  Now the article is about an age group between childhood and adolescence.  Of course, the new makeover is no longer about the "Tweener generation" which is the subject of this AfD.  The current content should be merged to preadolescence, and the old content should (if sourcing supports this) be mentioned in Generation Jones.   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree . . . the AfD was about a different article from the one that now exists. Someone who disagreed with the facts as presented on the initial page and came behind and edited it to suit his/her whims, but calling adolescents a "generation" seems odd to me. As it stands now, it seems it deserves a vote of delete as I don't see many sources for the initial claims. NoVomit (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with editing the article? It seems that AfD initial claims are not longer valid, because the article is different.--Jmundo (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with editing the article, except for the fact that this debate is now essentially about a different article than now exists. There seems little relationship between those born in the 1950s and a group of tweens. NoVomit (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, now the article should be deleted because the topic it addresses doesn't match the topic of the article (Tweener Generation). The existing content, that sometimes someone of such an age is called a "tweener" can be merged to preadolescence.  Otherwise the article is little more than a dicdef, and certainly is not notable (even amid the confusion of this particular AfD).   siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 01:00, 31 December 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.