Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Snowflake

Generation_Snowflake

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is a discussion of a term which is not widely used. The discussion is not NPOV. The discussion could also, with modifications, be lumped into the discussion of Millennials or Gen Z. Thanks. MHP Huck (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extensive use and discussion of the term in reliable sources. Keri (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -No reliable sources. The above comment isn't accurate. I can only find it in tabloids and even there the mentions are extremely thin.MHP Huck (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a review of a basic Google search and it returned zero reliable sources. Nothing at all. There is some alt-right type material, most of it is political, which isn't reliable. MHP Huck (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call The Times or The Daily Telegraph or The Independent or The Irish Times or the Irish Independent or GQ or The Australian "unreliable" and "tabloids". And where these organs are devoting whole articles to the term, I'd hardly call that coverage "extremely thin". Keri (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, Keri: The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, The Spectator, TES... even add the BBC if you don't mind minor coverage. These are already sources for the article! EddieHugh (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you guys are full of it :) so I have to disagree - those publications are mostly tabloids. You will notice that none of those papers have substantial circulation. Name me a paper with over 1 million in circulation that has used the term more than once. BBC is the best source you've cited, but I have never heard this term anywhere else. MHP Huck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers by circulation shows that all UK newspapers with a circulation of >1M are tabloids! Whether or not you have heard of it is not, you'll find, among the relevant criteria for notability. EddieHugh (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your response tells us all we need to know about your nomination. Keri (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what is that, exactly, Keri? In my view, a tabloid simply isn't a credible source. There is a UK newspaper with 800,000+ in circulation which is reputable - but they haven't used the term. Look, I am not unware of the availability heuristic. Part of my job is to read the news and I haven't ever seen the term. Ergo, I think I have a better perspective than average to determine if it is in wide use or not. Further, google trends and ngrams objectively support my subjective perspective. I am winning this kiddos. MHP Huck (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is that, exactly? "Ill-informed" and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You keep bandying around the word "tabloid" but appear to be confusing that with "circulation". You're not "winning", because this isn't a competition. The article meets general notability guidelines. If you don't have any grounds for deletion based on policy, you're simply wasting everyone else's time. Keri (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do if I like it or not. The term is non-existent in reliable sources. That is a problem for your position. Tabloids don't count, doesn't matter if they have high circulation or low. 22:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC) MHP Huck (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph is not a tabloid. The Spectator is not a tabloid. The Australian is not a tabloid. How are these not reliable sources? They fulfill the criteria laid out at WP:NEWSORG (though there may be too much reliance on opinion pieces in this article) and they don't make an appearance at WP:PUS. At any rate, it's important to distinguish the tabloid format from tabloid journalism. clpo13_(talk) 22:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to tabloid journalism. The British papers are tricky since, I would argue, many combine both aspects. MHP Huck (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – General notability guidelines state that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". This is clearly met: the article is sourced from, among others, a book, a major (non-tabloid) newspaper, a major magazine and (probably) the leading educational publication in the UK. This has all been discussed on the article's talk page. EddieHugh (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely contest that those are reliable sources. You didn't name the sources but described them since they are well known for being unreliable. Tabloids and alt-right publications with narrow audiences don't qualify as reputable sources. Period. MHP Huck (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming The Times, The Independent, the TES and The Daily Telegraph are unreliable, tabloid, alt-right sources, you should pop over to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and get them checked out. Keri (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG. {MordeKyle} ☢ 22:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires significant coverage, which is not present. This term also appears to be a "promoted term." I've seen neologism much stronger than this get booted. It is also possible the term is transitory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MHP Huck (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Popular use makes it an acceptable WP:NEOLOGISM, but as of now the article is just a mouthpiece for Fox's opinions and the tone treats them as fact. Should focus on the Collins definition or an article analyzing the term rather than critiquing the individuals labeled by that term. Jergling (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, The Austrlian's article is locked behind a paywall and comes up on my ad/virus blocker as malicious. Can anyone access it? Jergling (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does appear to meet WP:GNG. Actually I had come across the term and popped on to see if we had an article on it. It is a viable subject for an article, with further honing. Irondome (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still perplexed - I have never heard this term used generally and it seems vapid and rather dismissive. Do we have other ageist neologisms for comparison? I searched some other recent terms but they have all been merged with other pages. The term isn't used in the States. I guess if it is used abroad that changes my perspective. I still don't respect any of those publications where it has been used, however. MHP Huck (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term is in common usage today, more so since generation snowflake have gone on the rampage when the democrats lost the presidential election. the fact that so many snowflakes want it deleted is surely reason enough to keep it. It is used extensively on twitter to describe those that stamp their feet and cry their eyes out whenever they do not get their own way or someone dares to disagree with their narrow minded views.