Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Z[edit]

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 07:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete per nom Swatjester 08:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's waaaaay too early for this article to have any basis in reality other than in the hypothetical. As the article itself mentioned, even the name "Generation Z" is controversial because members of this generation are still far too young to have developed any peculiar generation-specific characteristics. In fact, most of them haven't entered school or even been born yet.

I'd try again in 20 years or so when we know more about this generation's culture, and hopefully by that time we'll have found a much, much better name than "Generation Z", too. ;) ekedolphin 08:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ekedolphin -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was used in (and the title of) this article which I found with Scholar Google, which according to its self “Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts and articles, from academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories, universities and other scholarly organizations. Google Scholar helps you identify the most relevant research across the world of scholarly research.” [[1]] --Elfwood 10:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with others that it is far too early to begin writing an article about this geenration, however I do feel it is important simply to have it defined as the succeeding generation to Gen Y. This way it won't be a red link on other pages. Just my two cents. 87.80.126.226 10:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the above that we need it defined as the succeeding generation. "Generation Z" will suffice as a 'holding' name for some years until a proper name can be assigned. The points made in the article about this being the post 9-11 generation were valid. 209.30.169.106 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it does. Generation Y is controversial and/or unsuitable in many circles as the name for the Gereration of the 80's and 90's. Why would Z, which is even more made up, POV, and fanciful name be appropriate?Gateman1997 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the objection is the name, I don't care if it's called something else. Call it 'The generation after generation y' if you wish, or 'the generation from 1997' onwards. Other generations sometimes have disputed names - 'Silent' generation or 'Air raid' generation? But as a generation, these children born into a post 9/11 world exist. So I think the basic entry should be kept (while not caring if it's Generation Z or something else.) 209.30.169.106 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the generation born after 11:15am on 28 Jan 2006? We surely must have a name for them? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- No generation is listed as having ended at 11.15am on 28 Jan. Whereas the Generation Y page does list Generation Y as having ended around 1997/2000 (as generations do after about 20 years). Therefore, since babies are still being born, a new generation must exist.209.30.169.106 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Compromise suggestion - add the Generation Z information to the bottom of the 'Generation Y' entry page as 'additional information - post Generation Y'. 209.30.169.106 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only argument for keeping this seems to be that it is next in alphabetic succession to the one which is next in alphabetic succession to Generation X, which is the only real one. Remove the foolish template and that problem goes away. Gen. X is notable, Gen. Y is made up by poeple with magazine space to fill and Gen. Z is pure nonsense from the ground up. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'll recreate this article in 20 years, when it's notable (if I remember). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 66,000 google hits on "generation z", and I've heard it in media and elsewhere. A concept that's being formed now in the real world, sure, but it is really out there. - Georgewilliamherbert 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per JzG. Arbustoo 09:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Having 66000 google hits really doesn't mean anything for this phrase. Stifle 15:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, especially when compared to Generation X with 86 million hits or the controversial Generation Y monkier with 146 million hits.Gateman1997 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Stifle. Of those 66000 hits, none of the top results have anything to do with the Generation Z in question. ♠ SG →Talk 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or rename "New Adaptive Generation" as it's called in Generations (book) article. (Of course these names are placeholders, until a more specific name emerges.) It doesn't hurt. 209.30.169.106's suggestion to add it at the end of the Gen. Y article would be even a better idea, if the latter the latter weren't already 59 KB long. --Army1987 11:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't see why we need this now. "Generation Y" as it's sometimes called hasn't even had time to define themselves as a generation yet. How could "Generation Z" with no individual member any more then 5 years old have any definite characteristics? Generations define themselves, not the media, such as the "Baby Boomers" or the "Greatest Generation".Gateman1997 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per SG. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete it? Let it evolve - as will the generation it is trying to define.--68.193.14.168 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is: it's not here to document the emergent, it's about documenting what is already significant. Re-create this in twenty years if it becomes signifciant by this name. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

10:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mr Tan 02:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gateman1997. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 20:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SG. --Interiot 01:53, 6 February 2006 (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.