Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of generations, 1900-present

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. This is now a redirect so any discussion on its deletion should take place on WP:RFD (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of generations, 1900-present

These terms are inherently loosely and inconsistently defined by authors who use them, and there is no source that establishes them as a concrete and cohesive series as purported by this article. The sources given do not meet WP:RS as reliable sources, and in any event references can't be used to back up these definitions because, as I said, different references use different definitions, or else they concede that the boundaries are vague. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These generations do not have clear boundaries, no, but generally speaking, they last around 15 years and average in those spans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwnera (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The author found there was already an article called List of generations and redirected his article there, which is fine. (He also then deleted the contents of that article and redirected it to another article he created, called List of cultural generations, 1900 to present. I wrote to him to tell him about article duplication and about deleting existing material. Then I restored the previous List of generations and his redirected title to it.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles have long been a problem, because there are a number of overlapping terms, with various incompatible definitions. But all of them are used, and need discussion. The attempts of some writers to make a formal scheme of them is only one way of thinking of them. DGG (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They do not have to have absolutely determinative and clear boundaries. Neither does the Bermuda Triangle:"The boundaries of the Triangle vary with the author". These "generations" have been recognized by scholars and by writers for major magazines as a way of characterizing how, say, children born to WW2 veterans (Baby Boomers) were different in their values or career paths from those born years later, such as the "Generation X." Edison (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't arguing that the terms aren't worthy of discussion. I was arguing that the author's attempt to write an article that holds them out as a systematically and objectively defined, lockstep series is invalid. But as I noted above, it doesn't matter now, because it turns out an article covering this topic already existed, so this one is now a redirection to that one. No merger was called for because the new article had no new information. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As this is now a redirect it is doing little harm. This is definitely NOT a reflection on List of generations (which would be a strong keep). Mark Hurd (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.