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. W.marsh 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Silent Generation[edit]

This is another Strauss and Howe neologism, describing individuals born in the first two decades of the 21st Century. It's crammed with weasel words and probably original research as well. Unlike other generational terms used by Strauss and Howe, this one has not acquired any widespread acceptance. Google hits are minimal [1], consisting mostly of blogs, wiki-mirrors and marketing sites. I suggest that this article fails our notability guidelines. Nydas^(Talk) 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trying to assess the character of a generation before much of it is born is crystal ball-ism. --Metropolitan90 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Re: OR, The name is found in S&H's books, it is not Original Research. Re NN:, every other generation in S&H's books has its own article, including Silent Generation. Google hits are a poor way to establish notability on many topics. Re: CRYSTAL, we simply report on what S&H have said. You may say other people (non-Wikipedians) should not speculate on the future, but it is a part of future studies and Wikipedia has tons of future studies articles. It is not CRYSTAL to report on what S&H have said. Fully cite-able, S&H are notable, every other generation has its own article. -- Stbalbach 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe that every single neologism coined by S&H is worth an article, particularly ones that have not appeared in any reliable source independent of the creators. The term itself is not original research, but the article does contain some dodgy, unreferenced speculation.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stbalbach. Irk_(talk) 12:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that you should know alot about a current generation before you start an article on it. We wont know 100% about this generation until it passes. Zulroth 4:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the point of S&H's work, they found repeating patterns (or "typologies") in prior generations and thus say generally what traits future generation will have based on prior generations and current events - we report on what S&H have said from their research, not delete the article because of disagreement with it. -- Stbalbach 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lemonsawdust 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stbalbach.l --AMK152 (Talk • Contributions Send message) 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stbalbach. While the article may not be written perfectly, its subject is worthy of an article.--Edward Tremel 23:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, even if it is a neologism it is notable, verifiable and in constant use by today's media and society. So you have no argument other than you wish this article to be gone because "you feel" it does not belong on Wikipedia. That my friend is personal politics and does not constitute a good enough reason for deletion. Next... Piecraft 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say it is in constant use by today's media and society is simply untrue.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of S&H and the system of generations makes it a notable term. All other terms they have coined in the past are notable, this is the next in a series of related and connected terms. The S&H system of generations is also notable, of which this is a part. -- Stbalbach 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis of 2020, another S&H neologism, was recently deleted as non-notable. I don't see how this is any different.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree Crisis of 2020 should be deleted. But that is not part of the generations series. See Template:Generations for a full list. All other generations have an article. Generation names are clearly notable. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator & above. /Blaxthos 23:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although i believe that the 'Strauss & Howe'-isms should have their own template & page, any of their future-predictions are not valid in the slightest. NathanHess 00:41, 13 January 2007.

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.