Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennial pause
- 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Millennial pause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is supported by weak sources or one-off articles; there is an insufficient amount of reliable sourcing to justify an article. Tkbrett (✉) 12:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The Atlantic is a reliable source as are other listed sources. "One-off article" is not a problem with a source under WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources are easy to find (1,2,3,4). It seems no WP:BEFORE was done here. Cortador (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- These sources are still insufficient because they only provide passing mentions. Refer to D3 at WP:BEFORE. Tkbrett (✉) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, they do not. The first two sources especially are only about the concept and nothing else. You clearly didn't read them, just like you didn't look for sources before you started this AfD. Cortador (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do not subscribe to paywalled German websites, nor do I read German. And, again, the English-language sources provide no more than a passing mention. Refer to D3 at WP:BEFORE. Tkbrett (✉) 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- You claimed above that the sources "only provide passing mentions", not that you couldn't access to read those sources. What language the sources are in doesn't matter, English-language Wikipedia doesn't require sources to be in English. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't quite the zinger you think it is, as it further indicates how little reliable sourcing there is. Tkbrett (✉) 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I kindly ask you to come up with a coherent argument why this article should be deleted. You started with there not being enough sources, then moved on to sources only mentioning the topic in passing, then to sources covering the topic but not in a language you can read, and finally that there are sources but not in a sufficiently high number. Cortador (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It was the same argument the whole time. But I am not going to waste my time trying convince you; the sourcing presented has been flimsy, and you seem to know this, which is why you pivoted away from trying to produce anything more substantial. Coming from a side of the encyclopedia that deals mainly in books, it is quite surprising to see how the weakest of sourcing passes on some parts. Tkbrett (✉) 10:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It clearly was not - you claimed above that the sources "only provide passing mentions" and then admitted that you didn't even read them because you lacked access to the (paywalled) site, and because the articles were written in a language you can't read. Cortador (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- It was the same argument the whole time. But I am not going to waste my time trying convince you; the sourcing presented has been flimsy, and you seem to know this, which is why you pivoted away from trying to produce anything more substantial. Coming from a side of the encyclopedia that deals mainly in books, it is quite surprising to see how the weakest of sourcing passes on some parts. Tkbrett (✉) 10:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I kindly ask you to come up with a coherent argument why this article should be deleted. You started with there not being enough sources, then moved on to sources only mentioning the topic in passing, then to sources covering the topic but not in a language you can read, and finally that there are sources but not in a sufficiently high number. Cortador (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't quite the zinger you think it is, as it further indicates how little reliable sourcing there is. Tkbrett (✉) 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- You claimed above that the sources "only provide passing mentions", not that you couldn't access to read those sources. What language the sources are in doesn't matter, English-language Wikipedia doesn't require sources to be in English. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I do not subscribe to paywalled German websites, nor do I read German. And, again, the English-language sources provide no more than a passing mention. Refer to D3 at WP:BEFORE. Tkbrett (✉) 20:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- No, they do not. The first two sources especially are only about the concept and nothing else. You clearly didn't read them, just like you didn't look for sources before you started this AfD. Cortador (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, they seem to be trying to argue that something being not in English makes it less reliable? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The entire paragraph in the business insider (culture) source is not a passing mention. It counts partially to the notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- These sources are still insufficient because they only provide passing mentions. Refer to D3 at WP:BEFORE. Tkbrett (✉) 15:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Here's another source in addition to all the ones already mentioned. Definitely seems like there's enough reliable sources to justify an article. --Aabicus (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Click-bait articles collecting social media posts hardly seem reliable, even if it is published on something potentially reliable, like WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. Outside of one Atlantic article, I have not seen a reliable source which points to this topic's notability. Tkbrett (✉) 20:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- This probably fails the Wikipedia notability test, under the Not a (Newspaper/Tabloid) disqualification. Nontoxicjon (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Tkbrett @Nontoxicjon This source falls under the Culture section, which RSP explicitly calls an exception that has consensus as reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Click-bait articles collecting social media posts hardly seem reliable, even if it is published on something potentially reliable, like WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. Outside of one Atlantic article, I have not seen a reliable source which points to this topic's notability. Tkbrett (✉) 20:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Abstain/weak Delete This seems to be one of those "just-so" popcorn articles that as of this writing are hot on Reddit. There is definitely a flavor of being contrived as the concept has less empirical backing here in quality sources than similar articles like the vocal fry.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 23:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. I was considering nominating this article when I first saw it, and at least from a WP:PAG perspective, the case for not keeping the article seems even stronger as I read through the support !votes here. This very much seems to be a neologism that that exists when you do a Google search, but the sources presented so far don't really reach WP:N, especially as I read through the comments here so far. Instead it's more in the purview of pop culture stuff that isn't always WP:DUE coverage for an encyclopedia (see WP:FART). It's similar to how Human-interest story isn't really considered hard news, and soft news is often considered flaky at best for discussions of notability. The other issue I'm seeing is that sources presented so far don't show sustained coverage, another required aspect of notability. It seems most of the pop-culture blogs, etc. talked about it in late 2022/early 2023. If the topic ever gets substantial and sustained coverage above the lower quality sources presented here and in the article here so far, then inclusion can always be reassessed, but I'm very wary of arguments merely saying sources exist. KoA (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with N. JoshuaZ and Cortador above. Maxx1222 (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources above already establish notability. As an editor who deals a lot with book sources, the nominator should know that a source being less-than-accessible does not hurt its notability at all. Two years seems enough for sustained coverage to me. I will not comment on the “all soft news are flaky” part as a proud member of m:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks, Aaron. Though I do think they are different things; there are topics covered in great detail by hard-to-find books, but there does not to seem to be any substantive discussion about the topic, which instead seems to only be covered in clickbait articles from the first couple months of last year. I do not think those articles collecting social media posts would qualify as reliable on any article I'd normally work on, so it is surprising to hear that it helps establish notability. I don't deal in this area of the encyclopedia normally, so I'll just drop it. Tkbrett (✉) 13:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I feel like the purpose of these articles are to identify longstanding online phenomena and what they mean. While, indeed, no sources have analyzed the topic yet, the coverage does confer notability and the topic seems like something worthy of further research. Even though there isn’t much information, it does seem big enough to at least document. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks, Aaron. Though I do think they are different things; there are topics covered in great detail by hard-to-find books, but there does not to seem to be any substantive discussion about the topic, which instead seems to only be covered in clickbait articles from the first couple months of last year. I do not think those articles collecting social media posts would qualify as reliable on any article I'd normally work on, so it is surprising to hear that it helps establish notability. I don't deal in this area of the encyclopedia normally, so I'll just drop it. Tkbrett (✉) 13:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, as painful as it is -- this is a silly article, which cites silly clickpieces, but our policies are that dumb clickpieces = notability, so until such a time as we revisit our notability guidelines, let this (and others like Cheugy which I wrote some years ago) stand as monuments to our hubris. jp×g🗯️ 01:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, Article is necessary and provided with Reliable sources. I suggest to Keep the Article. Caxwax (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for WP:N and WP:NEOLOGISM. The referenced sources consist entirely (besides dictionary definitions) of opinion articles that are collations of social media posts, and the article spends as almost much time explaining what millennials and zoomers are as it does on the subject matter. Sources are irrelevant, article contents are mostly irrelevant. Would be better suited for a Wiki focused on TikTokisms. Timothy "The Baron" Pickle (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is the only edit Baron has made so far.
NEOLOGISM only applies to thosethat have little or no usage in reliable sources
. This is clearly not the case with the sources above, which I don't see how are "opinion" articles, and summarizing the neologism is pretty relevant. RSes pick up and explore it (which is more than just collected usages and has been done), so we include and explore it. The article also only spends 4 footnoted sentences for explaining what generations are. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is the only edit Baron has made so far.
- 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.