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 Gnangarra 09:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Generation[edit]

MTV Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Possibly not notable, needs to be rewritten, low-quality, hoaxish as well. Also may have original research, and cleanup. I speedied in the spirit of A7 and IAR, but User:TigerShark overturned me. However, I feel this article should be deleted, and well, this is the prover venue. Maxim_(talk) 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is one of the "official" generations named by Strauss and Howe, who virtually created the idea. There have been a number of original "generation" names with articles, few of them really having sources, but this one will have much more. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The above withdrawn; I was mistaken. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but requries major re-write and purging of original research (BTW, while the nominator's reasons of "needs to be rewritten, low-quality" and "may have original research, and cleanup" properly assess the article, these are not reasons to delete - merely to fix). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Drop. To agree with the Strauss and Howe claim above, I'd like proof. Even with said proof, where's other research available confirming this phenomena as a reality of our society? Otherwise, this is very neologistic/original-research laden article. Perhaps in 5-10 years better material will be available for this gap in generations, but I don't see very much convincing evidence right now. (This is not intended as a slight against this generation: I was born in 1980 myself.) Micah 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but do not salt. Currently, this article fails WP:NEO, but I would like to see how this term gets accepted in the future. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has a bit of original research, but it does seem to be a good article. I have heard the term 'MTV Generation' used several times before, though I can't think of where. The reasons for nomination were not really appropriate, as ZimZalaBim said. This seems to be quite a useful article, there seems to be no good reason to delete this as I am confident it is notable.Darkcraft 12:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are 361,000+ ghits for "MTV Generation", and even old fogies like me are acquainted with the term. Mandsford 12:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Actually, only 800 UNIQYE Google hits. But I think we still have something if we rewrite and remove OR. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The phrase 'MTV Generation' is just as well known and comparable to phrases such as the Swinging Sixties - they are phrases which capture the zeitgeist. However the article absolutely must be re-written as without in-line citations the article is partly a synthesis and comprises original research. Also, there is absolutely no-way an article like this is a candidate for speedy deletion. RichyBoy 13:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep edit if neccessary to remove unverifiable material, its use is widespread (searching within actual news organisations and not google in general I found27 Time magazine articles, 9 Newsweek articles and 5 BBC pages) however it is used as a shorthand with the unspoken assumption of what everyone knows what it means and I couldn't find an actual definition of the term.KTo288 15:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I suppose it has gotten into the common use. So it will need to be rewritten to indicate that, and remove the nonsense. As it is considered desirable to improve an article at AfD, I have removed a good deal of the nonsense right now., since it seems it will be kept. DGG (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and now some more. I also started cleaning the references. I notice that almost all the material in the original article did NOT support the use of MTV generation. I have not yet added the material linked to above. Possibly the article should be split--most of the contents seems to discuss the term "9/11 Generation" DGG (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but cleanup, etc. as necessary. Very notable term and one we're also likely to hear more of as the MTV Generation takes over from the Baby Boomers. 23skidoo 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP, yes cleanup would be nice, but why all the hostility? This term, evidently coined by Strauss and Howe, is probably the best possible term to refer to the "cusp" between generations X and Y, or those people born between the mid 1970s and the mid or late 1980s. They were basically too young for X fads like 1980s/early 90s music, but are probably mostly already too old to be considered the "heart" of generation Y; they exhibit both reactive/independent (X-like) qualities as well as heroic/rational (Y-like) qualities.Shanoman 18:17, 13 September 2007 (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.