Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Y Generation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge to Generation Y. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cold Y Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Articles and references do not establish notability. Neither the business week article or the wordpress blog article even mentions the term Cold Y Generation. The only reference that does is an opinion column from the CBC website. The Google Scholar and Google Books search yields nothing. Google news only shows the one opinion piece. Nasa-verve (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – A real shame that this article has lived a life going from a lot to almost nothing. I think that is what happened last time it was deleted as well. Plenty of stuff about this in the relevant litterature but actually finding references online is more difficult. --Law Lord (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm..nowadays the "relevant literature" would have shown up on a Google scholar search, but it did not....I dont think it exists.... Nasa-verve (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree 100% with you. Your faith in Google searches is not promising, I think. --Law Lord (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are more than welcome to post some info on this literature. Authors, publishers, titles, ISBN numbers (or pages of articles in scientific magazines). Google search is no infallible, but without any info to actually check your claim that the literature exists, it remains a claim without strength in keeping the article. Fram (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. --Law Lord (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are more than welcome to post some info on this literature. Authors, publishers, titles, ISBN numbers (or pages of articles in scientific magazines). Google search is no infallible, but without any info to actually check your claim that the literature exists, it remains a claim without strength in keeping the article. Fram (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree 100% with you. Your faith in Google searches is not promising, I think. --Law Lord (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useful content into Generation Y. -- Ϫ 02:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article challenged lon,g ago already. No reliable independent sources to support this, so it is a neologism, an unrecognized sociological term. Fram (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - neologism. Very few reliable sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any info into Gen Y. Not notable enough to have it's own article-yet. bob bobato (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; not notable. N2e (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NEO. Skip the redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:45, 3 September 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.