471:. 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? -
430:
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.
247:, 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 Knowledge'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
346:. 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.--
386:. 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 Knowledge. No
507:
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
365:
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
177:
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
536:
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
589:
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
583:
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
305:
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.--
304:
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
251:
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
209:
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
429:
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
369:
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
330:
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
546:
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
147:
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
299:
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
201:.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
286:
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
366:
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).
233:, 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
142:
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
390:
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
374:
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
395:), 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.--
370:
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.
164:. 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. --
278:. 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
121:
210:
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.--
128:
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
291:--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
270:. 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
94:
89:
563:. 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 "
537:
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.
656:
98:
508:
as OR or SYN since there's no conclusion inherently being made here. This could, and should, just be an organizational list, nothing more.
382:
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
683:-- I don't even know where to begin. Surely much of this is salvageable, but not necessarily in this one centralized location. Umm... wow.
81:
229:
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
Knowledge. Per
590:
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.
405:
356:
315:
220:
491:
comments; the article/list is notable for inclusion in my opinion, but it needs a rewrite, and many, many citations to back it up.
161:
17:
584:
and deserve major articles, such as
Generation X. Everything else is in-world, if the term can be used for non-fiction.
338:
Agreed that a strong rationale was not provided by the nominator, but I have provided one based upon the policies of
625:
687:
673:
661:
632:
615:
601:
575:
551:
541:
527:
512:
495:
475:
456:
434:
409:
360:
319:
256:
224:
189:
168:
136:
63:
702:
36:
701:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
85:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
538:
509:
401:
352:
311:
288:
216:
650:
629:
670:
243:
of cocktails, but if you try to delete it, I think you'd find yourself troutslapped. I've read about
157:
132:. Looks like many others have expressed concern about this. Seems like the time to act has come.
77:
69:
520:
per lack of sources that tie all these generations together. As of now, this list is completely
644:, but is unsourced. Personally I think the concept of the 'generation' is nonsense anyway but
396:
347:
306:
235:
211:
60:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
383:
371:
292:
279:
375:
283:
129:
641:
453:
431:
230:
597:
572:
492:
343:
275:
253:
185:
165:
133:
295:). AfD is not a vote, and keep voters must respond to the point that this violates
612:
548:
521:
488:
472:
392:
387:
339:
296:
271:
49:
115:
611:. This is encyclopedic material, but some sources would be a welcome addition.
447:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
684:
524:
301:
239:. I mean, I've never read a newspaper or scholarly paper that talks about
592:
547:
evidence. No reason to throw out an article for two columns of a chart. -
180:
156:
Not even close to a valid rationale. Possibly this user meant to delete
205:"list of generations" is widely discussed? In what reliable sources is
178:
showing what is thought of it. I've discussed the template at the TfD.
160:? There's already a discussion about the deletion of that template:
282:
and, well, other stuff. None of it is cited. Who decided that the
695:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
646:
we don't choose what our sources choose to make notable
111:
107:
103:
162:
Knowledge:Templates for deletion#Template:Generations
452:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
705:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
7:
571:" is a magnet for AFD nominations.
24:
669:is unsourced and sort of vague.
640:. Seems to serve a purpose per
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
626:List of generations in the USA
567:" namespace, which just like "
1:
688:03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
674:00:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
662:10:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
64:04:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
722:
633:22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
616:02:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
602:01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
576:23:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
552:19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
542:19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
528:17:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
513:17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
496:15:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
476:15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
457:08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
435:14:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
410:04:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
361:02:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
257:17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
320:20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
225:20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
190:05:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
169:03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
137:17:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
698:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
378:(which in fact is not
289:Interbellum Generation
252:out on a talk page. --
569:...in popular culture
158:template:generations
78:List of generations
70:List of generations
609:Keep and Clean Up
459:
408:
359:
318:
236:List of cocktails
223:
62:
713:
700:
539:FrozenPurpleCube
510:FrozenPurpleCube
469:Cleanup and Cite
451:
449:
399:
384:Generation Jones
372:Strauss and Howe
350:
309:
293:Great Depression
280:Strauss and Howe
214:
119:
101:
59:
56:
53:
34:
721:
720:
716:
715:
714:
712:
711:
710:
709:
703:deletion review
696:
660:
657:r e s e a r c h
445:
388:reliable source
376:Beat Generation
284:Beat Generation
130:Beat Generation
92:
76:
73:
54:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
719:
717:
708:
707:
691:
690:
677:
676:
664:
654:
635:
619:
618:
605:
604:
586:
585:
578:
557:
556:
555:
554:
544:
531:
530:
515:
501:
500:
499:
498:
479:
478:
461:
460:
450:
442:
440:
438:
437:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
333:
332:
323:
322:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
193:
192:
171:
150:
149:
126:
125:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
718:
706:
704:
699:
693:
692:
689:
686:
682:
679:
678:
675:
672:
668:
665:
663:
659:
658:
653:
652:
647:
643:
639:
636:
634:
631:
627:
624:
621:
620:
617:
614:
610:
607:
606:
603:
599:
595:
594:
588:
587:
582:
581:Strong delete
579:
577:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:
558:
553:
550:
545:
543:
540:
535:
534:
533:
532:
529:
526:
523:
519:
516:
514:
511:
506:
503:
502:
497:
494:
490:
486:
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
474:
470:
466:
463:
462:
458:
455:
448:
444:
443:
441:
436:
433:
428:
425:
424:
411:
407:
403:
398:
394:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
335:
334:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
321:
317:
313:
308:
303:
298:
294:
290:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
265:
258:
255:
250:
246:
242:
238:
237:
232:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
213:
208:
204:
200:
197:
196:
195:
194:
191:
187:
183:
182:
176:
172:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
151:
146:
141:
140:
139:
138:
135:
131:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
58:
57:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
697:
694:
680:
666:
655:
649:
645:
637:
630:132.205.44.5
622:
608:
591:
580:
568:
564:
560:
517:
504:
484:
468:
464:
446:
439:
426:
397:Bigtimepeace
379:
348:Bigtimepeace
307:Bigtimepeace
267:
248:
244:
240:
234:
212:Bigtimepeace
206:
202:
198:
179:
174:
153:
144:
127:
50:
46:No Consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
671:Harlowraman
565:List of ...
518:Weak Delete
427:Weak Delete
249:generations
154:Speedy Keep
638:Weak keep
489:Markeer's
454:Sandstein
432:Mandsford
302:link farm
274:and also
245:cocktails
241:that list
207:this list
573:23skidoo
493:Zidel333
406:contribs
357:contribs
316:contribs
254:JayHenry
221:contribs
166:JayHenry
134:Dylanfly
122:View log
681:Comment
642:WP:LIST
613:Useight
549:Markeer
473:Markeer
231:WP:LIST
199:Comment
175:comment
95:protect
90:history
685:JPG-GR
667:Delete
623:Rename
380:at all
344:WP:SYN
276:WP:SYN
268:Delete
148:(UTC).
99:delete
651:h i s
525:Corpx
522:WP:OR
393:WP:OR
340:WP:OR
331:(UTC)
297:WP:OR
272:WP:OR
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
648:...-
598:talk
561:Keep
505:Keep
487:per
485:Keep
467:but
465:Keep
402:talk
353:talk
342:and
312:talk
217:talk
203:this
186:talk
145:keep
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
52:Citi
593:DGG
404:|
355:|
314:|
219:|
181:DGG
120:– (
55:Cat
628:.
600:)
400:|
351:|
310:|
215:|
188:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
48:.
596:(
184:(
173:'
124:)
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.