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 delete. Original research; singular source does not verify article seicer | talk | contribs 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennial era[edit]

This page appears to be nothing but original research. The one source listed (which currently needs to be retrieved manually from the editing window) has does not even feature the word "millenial" or "era", or anything related to this article. Unschool (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search on the internet. It appears that the term is quite loosely defined. Often it is used to refer to the periosd after the millenium while the article refers to the period leading up to the millenium. I suspect the content of this page is probably more opinion than fact.Mozzie (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All original research and no links to sources. This user has a history of creating articles that were later deleted. May qualify for A7. --Macrowiz (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, I don't think the creator's past history of article creation should be a factor here. Each article should be judged on its own. We should not label editors, with the policy-driven exception of vandals, lest we succumb to Becker's dilemma.Unschool (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research; reads like a personal essay and contains nothing factual not found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an ambiguous and ill-defined term, where the interpretation given is not supported by reliable sources. Reads like an WP:OR essay. Nsk92 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article never defines what the "millennial era" is (1990-1999? 2000-2009? something else entirely?), and the focus on trends in popular music is just plain bizarre. We already have a bunch of articles on "2000 in X" and "X in the 2000s" (for example, 2000 in music and Music in the 2000s). While there's potential (given extensive SECONDARY sources) for an article on the cultural phenomenon of the third millennium (consider the prevalence of "in the year 2000" predictions in the late 20th century, for example), this article isn't it. It's not even close. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the OR concerns. There's no indication that a "Milennial era" has been formally defined in any way; it's just the 1990s and the 2000s. That's not to say such a term might not be coined in the future (though more likely it'll be something like "Pre-9/11 Era") but right now there's nothing to support what's here. 23skidoo (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this sort of article (especially) needs sources; otherwise, it shouldn't stay. -- Biruitorul ^Talk 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, original research. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re-opened reverted my close and restored at the request of DGG, whose input I request. StarM 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SNOW. Research exists on the Milennial Era, and what's sourced is in and could potenitally be added to articles such as Generation Y. This is pure OR unencyclopedic essay. It could be said Millennial fever still exists in the 2000s decade as people still call the current year "two thousand eight" and not "twenty oh eight". StarM 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I used to take sympathy for articles of this nature. I do believe that it must be sourced. (Tigerghost (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy delete as (approximate) recreation of previously deleted article by the same person. Still unsourced, still no source for the name of the article presented (although I'm perfectly willing to believe that a source exists for different time periods.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It is at the moment an essay; however, we have a variety of articles on generations and the like and, if the term is in fact used, & I think it is, there ought to be a possible redirect. I'll take a look. I asked for a day to two to do it. I don't thing there would be the least difficulty finding sources to support each of the statements, but the question is whether its worth looking. DGG (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2008 (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.