Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of generations (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of generations

No significant improvement since the last nomination. Still disputed as to which "generations" are real and which are subgenerations, now no sources are given (and no source has every been given which had Generation Jones on a list), etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw provided that the dates remain removed. If the dates reappear, then this nomination should automatically reappear. (The concerns about factual accuracy remain, as well as the selection of "facts" probably being a WP:Synthesis, but there is then some hope of a meaningful article being produced.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure why sources should be given since this list primarily links to other Wikipedia entries that are sourced. Lothar76 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every generation listed here has a specific article. If there are problems with sourcing on any of those articles then they should be improved. Edward321 (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every generation listed has an article. So do a number which aren't listed, which overlap these generations. That makes the list orginal research, unless a source for the list can be found. Perhaps it should just be deleted in favor of Category:Cultural generations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are many sources which have lists including Generation Jones, and the supposed "issues" with this article are primarily in the mind of the editor making this nomination, who has a personal agenda which is driving this nomination, as opposed to this being a good faith attempt to provide Wikipedia readers with accurate articles. I point this out not in an attempt to attack this editor, but because it seems like relevant context in considering this proposed deletion. Having said that, I'm not sure how I feel about deleting this article, I could probably go either way; it has flaws, but also provides a useful role. Maybe we should try listing the generations without the birth years.TreadingWater (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there are problems with the list, they should be corrected. Some sort of temporal ordering is crucial to make sense of these. A category won't do it. Drawn Some (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I've expressed on the article's talk page, I have concerns with the way the way generations are characterized and the terms in which they are being discussed. However, as to the question of whether an article listing the generations employed by sociologists should exist, I have to say to Arthur Rubin that Wikipedia has lists compiling comparable objects, each having its own article, without any requirement that a reliable source containing the same compilation be provided, or even that any reference be supplied at all. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Largo Plazo. The nomination is flawed: references are not required for lists; "subgeneration" is almost only referenced by Talk:List_of_generations; and any problems with the list can be corrected. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with the list (disagreement among reliable sources as to the dates, whether a particular grouping is a "generation" or a cohort within a generation -- subgeneration was only used here, and my use of it was a mistake -- and even the ordering in some cases) has been discussed for over 3 months. It hasn't been fixed. The table was removed, but the text section hasn't been improved noticably. Some would say the problems have gotten worse. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with removing indicative date ranges is the utility of the article as a reference is reduced. If someone wants to know what generation they're in, don't look at this page as it is now because if you are on the cusp of a couple of the generations you have no indication where the cut off nominally is. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point: it isn't cut-and-dried that every person is clearly in exactly one of the generations, and it isn't even very useful to say that such-and-such individual is in this or that generation. Generations are used to discuss large aggregates of people; many individuals will have characteristics that are largely divergent from the ones associated with the whatever generation that person may "belong to". You speak of utility; giving a false impression doesn't create utility, it creates the illusion of utility. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
week Keepand rename, to indicate the degree to which this is the fringe and not accepted list based primarily upon trauss, Strauss & Howe, and not a standard viewpoint, though some of what it incorporates are standards. The proper place to present their theory is the article on their book Generations. There could equally well be a list giving on a equal basis every proposed generation, with the source and the period. I've been working on this group of articles for 2 years now, and it's been very frustrating. The solution is however not to get rid of it. DGG (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be a good example of WP:RECENTISM as generation X/Y/Z seems to be the stuff of journalism rather than a good article. There have, of course, been many generations in other centuries and places and I have illustrated this by creating the article Revolutionary generation. Consideration of this may assist the discussion. To my mind, the issue is whether generation is too loose a term, like movement, to be useful for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said in a previous AFD, 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." If reliable sources say that baby boomers, for instance were born between certain years, it is appropriate to include that information in the list entry for that generation. There is the danger of too many made up generations. That is why good sourcing and avoidance of synthesis and original research is required in the articles about the individual "generations." They are all going to be a bit slippery of cutoff years, but so are a great many classificatiins, such as styles of musicians, or the boundaries of the Bermuda Triangle, or what is torture. Edison (talk) 22:43, 13 May 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.