Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 2000 baby boom


 * 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   delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Year 2000 baby boom

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No references except for one that actually does not support the article itself. Therefore, non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I thought this was hoaxy, but a search of "Y2K baby boom" did net THIS ARTICLE FROM THE NY DAILY NEWS. This REUTERS STORY IN THE DESERET NEWS indicates that the projected Y2K baby boom was a "bust worldwide." It seems as though this was one of the Bored Journalists on Deadline made-up stories of 2000. No opinion as to encyclopedia-worthiness — but it's not a hoax, for sure. Carrite (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not a hoax, agreed, and certainly there could be an article about "Journalists projected millenial baby boom fails to appear". But that's a stretch. So I'm putting down the comment I was writing up earlier. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Media suggested this would happen (e.g. Guardian 'Baby boom' for the millenium but I find no evidence that it was a reality (e.g. U.S. Census 2000 press release might have mentioned it; University of Soton researchers report that it wasn't happening. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At most this might merit a note as an alleged baby boom at the Baby boom article. Here's another weak news report on the boom..  This reminds me that there was a story after obama's election about some reporter trolling for evidence of an obama-election-baby-boom.  If you think wikipedia is bad, try journalism, I always say.--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I created this article by forking it from Baby boom, which iterated through various booms, rather than describing what a baby boom was. I won't miss this article if the consensus is to delete. Some of the sources missing from this article might be present on baby boom instead, and I forgot to copy them over. — Nicholas (reply) @ 09:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article has zero sources, and the sources cited above in this discussion tend to suggest that the article is inaccurate and that no such baby boom occurred. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless someone is willing to rewrite the article about the hypothetical event that never happened, the article in its present state is misleading. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 03:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think an article COULD be sourced out and written on this topic, as a sort of case study of the realities of the news cycle. Whether one SHOULD write an encyclopedia article on the non-fruition of baseless speculation and abstract theorization that couples would bring the new millennium in with a bang, so to speak, is an altogether different matter. Carrite (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2011 (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.