329:
upon which you are commenting. We might find the idea of this annoying, but it is well sourced. It doesn't need to be based on 'serious/scientific research'- not saying that's bad/wrong, but for wiki purposes we're not a solely science-based wiki, it just needs to be discussed in reasonably reputable media.
328:
Maybe I've missed something, why do the nom and others think this is not notable/unsourced when it seems to list several articles, a book etc that reference it, some of the articles in reputable newspapers? Perhaps you could all take another look at the article, maybe it has changed from the version
578:
In response to the initial reasons given to delete the article, I removed what was claimed to be a recreation of a deleted article on a specific person noted widely as a representative of
Generation Z and added the first half dozen google hits. Goggle shows 18400 hits for the term. I in no way added
173:
Let's wait until this generation described here gets into middle school before the media slaps an unnotable (and dare I say, lazy) 'buzzworthy' label on them. Right now they're just kids and that's good enough for me. There's also another tag which unfortunately will define them a bit more and is in
125:
Good god, where to begin. Gen Z is a basically blank article when we remove all the original research, dealing with what is essentially a US media buzz word. There is absolutely no real scientific source or research and a surprising majority of the sources refer to the
Delaney incident. It had had a
601:
You have ignored all what I've posted in reply to you. Please re-read it. My initial criticism wasn't the fact it was recreated, as I explain above. I fear you may have misunderstood my qualms with the article. And if by the person "noted widely" as a representative of gen Z you mean
Delaney, I'd
246:
The above is no longer relevant because the section that was objected to as a "recreation" has been deleted. Please delete this request for deletion and help write a better article it you object to stubs. Can anyone doubt that the article will grow in the future? It is a good stub. Don't pull up
387:
According to whom, exactly? There is no one authority on generational terms and they can just as easily change if some other event defines a decade. Let's also note that the
Washington Post needs features articles to fill out their paper so they write these stories that do so and generate debate
561:
Most of the references given were to unreliable newsletters and blog postings, the apparent result of taking everything however marginal to be found in Google. I have removed them. I am less than happy about two of the remaining ones--there is no good documentation for the relations to the book
308:
I've removed your separator, I did not object on grounds of recreation, I merely noted that after my objections to the article in order to provide a complete picture, as I would have assumed was obvious. The editors who voted did so fully able to look at the article and its history themselves,
501:
The media also collapses into a collective orgy every time Paris Hilton replaces her slippers but we don't publish that. We don't have to give in to every whim of the media, let alone a place-holder buzzword. And the sources are shady at best. As for "media judgements", let's not go down that
388:
about what a generation cshould be called. What may be correct now may not be so at the end of 2009 or 2019, and I could come up with quite a few names off the top of my head that could be credible (The MySpace/Facebook/vogue social network of the day
Generation for instance).
469:". This article applies to everyone born after 1990; 18 years old and younger as of 2008. You "stand by" your claim that media judgements about them are too early? The media does not agree with you. Are you wikipedia's authority or are reliable published sources?
417:
Sure, it might not become hugely popular. But a
Washington Post article solely on the term establishes notability (plus the other sources). And I think it would be unwise to salt a topic that is at least
543:"Gen Z is a basically blank article when we remove all the original research, dealing with what is essentially a US media buzz word. There is absolutely no real scientific source or research..."
118:
562:
Generations, and the Corey article is as close to a blog posting as a newspaper can get. I think it is probably a notable term, but it will need much better documentation.
148:
632:
294:
Goggle shows 18400 hits for the term. Let the article live long enough to become more. "Not being a dictionary" does not we delete all stubs.
17:
236:
91:
86:
637:
606:
588:
573:
549:
533:
506:
478:
460:
431:
412:
382:
353:
337:
313:
303:
289:
256:
240:
223:
202:
165:
134:
95:
60:
579:
everything Google could find. Maybe we should add back the specific person noted widely as a representative of
Generation Z?
160:
78:
232:
652:
36:
651:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
280:
as this seems to be a term which is new to come into existence and does not have an agreed upon definition.
626:
436:
I agree that salting isn't the best course of action at least (too rash), but I stand by my statements.
365:
How is this not notable? Washington Post article alone does it. Further, it clearly is going to be a
268:
removed, the article is now essentially a dictionary definition. Thus, I maintain my delete vote under
422:
to be a common part of our cultural vocabulary. I'd certainly take an even money bet on this one.
621:
584:
529:
524:- as I noted above, the article has changed enough so the reasons given to delete no longer apply.
474:
451:
403:
299:
285:
252:
219:
193:
55:
157:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
48:. The article has been trimmed nicely, and as a stub, it is referenced enough to be kept.
277:
269:
427:
378:
346:
330:
175:
602:
like to see some sources backing up such an assertion. Multiple, if possible. Thank you +
345:
what I mean is, several articles in fairly mainstream media (even if it's not highbrow).
265:
580:
525:
470:
439:
391:
295:
281:
248:
215:
181:
603:
569:
546:
503:
310:
131:
49:
153:
74:
66:
273:
112:
423:
374:
624:, where it'll fit in nicely without having to be a stand-alone article.--
564:
467:
Let's wait until this generation described here gets into middle school
645:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
545:- which part of the primary objections doesn't apply? +
108:
104:
100:
276:
is not a dictionary. Also, would seem to fall under
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
655:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
214:. Second recreation of deleted material.
247:crops just cuz they are not full grown.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
130:but has apparently been recreated. +
24:
126:deletion debate resulting in a
1:
638:21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
607:06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
589:20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
574:02:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
550:05:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
534:21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
507:05:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
479:21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
461:23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
432:21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
413:21:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
383:19:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
354:17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
338:17:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
314:05:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
304:16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
290:15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
257:14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
241:13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
224:11:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
203:11:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
166:08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
135:08:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
61:17:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
672:
369:used term, so salting it
648:Please do not modify it.
309:without your guidance. +
32:Please do not modify it.
233:Otolemur crassicaudatus
231:agree with all above.
465:At the top you said "
622:List of generations
618:Merge and redirect
502:slippery slope. +
458:
410:
200:
174:more common use;
663:
650:
459:
454:
448:
447:
442:
411:
406:
400:
399:
394:
350:
334:
201:
196:
190:
189:
184:
164:
116:
98:
58:
52:
44:The result was
34:
671:
670:
666:
665:
664:
662:
661:
660:
659:
653:deletion review
646:
636:
633:r e s e a r c h
452:
445:
440:
437:
404:
397:
392:
389:
373:seems unwise.
348:
332:
274:Knowledge (XXG)
194:
187:
182:
179:
176:Generation 9/11
163:
152:
89:
73:
70:
56:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
669:
667:
658:
657:
641:
640:
630:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
594:
593:
592:
591:
559:Very weak Keep
555:
554:
553:
552:
537:
536:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
359:
358:
357:
356:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
244:
243:
226:
205:
168:
156:
123:
122:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
668:
656:
654:
649:
643:
642:
639:
635:
634:
629:
628:
623:
619:
616:
615:
608:
605:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
590:
586:
582:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
566:
560:
557:
556:
551:
548:
544:
541:
540:
539:
538:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
519:
508:
505:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
457:
455:
444:
443:
435:
434:
433:
429:
425:
421:
416:
415:
414:
409:
407:
396:
395:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:is just crazy
368:
364:
361:
360:
355:
352:
351:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
336:
335:
327:
315:
312:
307:
306:
305:
301:
297:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:Speedy Delete
206:
204:
199:
197:
186:
185:
177:
172:
169:
167:
162:
159:
155:
150:
146:
145:Speedy/CSD G4
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
133:
129:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
647:
644:
631:
625:
617:
563:
558:
542:
521:
466:
449:
438:
419:
401:
390:
370:
366:
362:
347:
331:
325:
324:
245:
228:
211:
207:
191:
180:
170:
149:Previous AfD
144:
143:potentially
140:
127:
124:
75:Generation Z
67:Generation Z
45:
43:
31:
28:
270:WP:NOT#DICT
363:Clear Keep
349:Merkinsmum
333:Merkinsmum
581:WAS 4.250
526:WAS 4.250
471:WAS 4.250
296:WAS 4.250
282:Redfarmer
264:With the
249:WAS 4.250
216:Redfarmer
604:Hexagon1
547:Hexagon1
504:Hexagon1
311:Hexagon1
132:Hexagon1
119:View log
453:chatter
405:chatter
326:comment
210:G4 and
195:chatter
154:RoninBK
92:protect
87:history
420:likely
367:widely
278:WP:NEO
229:Delete
171:Delete
141:Delete
128:delete
96:delete
51:Keeper
627:h i s
424:Hobit
375:Hobit
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
585:talk
570:talk
530:talk
522:Keep
475:talk
441:Nate
428:talk
393:Nate
379:talk
300:talk
286:talk
253:talk
237:talk
220:talk
212:salt
183:Nate
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
46:Keep
620:to
565:DGG
272:as
151:)--
117:– (
54:|
587:)
572:)
532:)
477:)
430:)
381:)
302:)
288:)
266:OR
255:)
239:)
222:)
178:.
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
57:76
583:(
568:(
528:(
473:(
456:)
450:(
446:•
426:(
408:)
402:(
398:•
377:(
298:(
284:(
251:(
235:(
218:(
198:)
192:(
188:•
161:C
158:T
147:(
121:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.