Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Snowflake

Add links
Source: 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 01:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generation_Snowflake

AfDs for this article:
Generation_Snowflake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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]

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]
A quick search of the Wall Street Journal web site shows at least half a dozen uses of the term within the past year. The Wall Street Journal is a credible source. The Washington Post also has at least two articles using the term. While I might question whether the WaPo is credible at this point, others would not. This looks like an attempt at a one-person heckler's veto.97.91.254.54 (talk) 05:20, 23 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]
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]
I was able to access it by Googling the article title. However, linking it directly doesn't seem to work because this link now won't work for me: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/generation-snowflake-why-millenials-are-mocked-for-being-too-delicate/news-story/2f885d016af1a881bff92b69282fd88e, even though I just copied it off a page I was able to access via googling the title. It's weird, but if you want to read it, try googling the title: "Generation snowflake: why millenials are mocked for being too delicate" --DynaGirl (talk) 23:59, 18 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]
Well, there is the Me Generation article about the Baby boomers. With respect to the Generation Snowflake article, I added notability and POV tags shortly after it was created, but since then additional refs have been added, and at this point, it probably does meet GNG. POV still seems to be an issue, although it's better than it used to be. It is a challenge to write a neutral and encyclopedic article about a pejorative term.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Me Generation, this case still seems weak. That term had entire books written about it. Popular books, too. Snowflake just has one or two politically-aligned pundits echoing the term in their own little sphere. Maybe someone will write a book about this eventually, but then the argument could be made for WP:TOOSOON Jergling (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone did write a book about it: The Snowflake Effect was published in 2014, and Fox's book was published this year. Keri (talk) 20:09, 18 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flap zappa (talk • contribs) 08:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC) — Flap zappa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Great job differentiating yourself from Generation Snowflake by throwing a fit and name-calling because you believe someone disagrees with you. Jergling (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I responded similarly but my comment was removed. I think the above comment from Flap zappa shows that this process is biased. MHP Huck (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was directed at a specific editor, calling them an idiot. That is a personal attack. Flap zappa's sweeping rudeness towards "so many snowflakes" may have been ill-mannered but was not directed at a particular editor. Keri (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And his comment, which still stands, reads, "the fact that so many snowflakes want it deleted" (I appear to be the only one here who wants it deleted, and I don't consider myself a snowflake but he is referring to me) and he then says, "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." Plainly, this is directed at me, and he is showing how this term is used as an insult. I think Keri needs to step off this page and let a less biased Wikipedian guide this decision process. MHP Huck (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huck and Keri: Please don't refactor others' comments. That includes striking out votes, or deleting comments because they contained a mean word. Calling someone an idiot is an insult and clearly uncivil, but it's not a personal attack and would better be solved by discussion. Jergling (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lecture me on fucking policy, pal. I'm not refactoring others' comments, I'm striking out a !vote that shouldn't have been made - you don't vote on your own nomination. As for incivility, calling someone an idiot is clearly a personal attack. Far better editors than you or MHP Huck have been blocked for doing so. Keri (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you need to wind your neck in and drop the battleground mentality. Keri (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to say but "wow". Jergling (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a confirm that Keri is a problem. I don't need to win this or anything, I literally thought this term wasn't in use. I still think the sourcing is weak and the language questionable. Is there anyway we can get another user to take over the "lead" or whatever it is that Keri has asserted here? MHP Huck (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I am "asserting" here is actually called "stating policy". Constantly complaining about policy reinforces the impression that your nomination for deletion is a combination of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Keri (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are claiming that your interpretation of policy is right and mine is wrong. I don't know. But you appear to be biased here. I have no problem being wrong here about the relevance and notoriety of the term, but you seem completely intent that you are right. MHP Huck (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "interpreting" policy, I'm stating it. There is no linguistic or philosophical qualification required: you cannot call another editor "an idiot", and not expect to be called out. You cannot claim that an article is not reliably sourced when de facto it is, and not expect to be called out. You cannot call other editors a liar - as you did to me - and not expect to be called out. Keri (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keri, you have clearly applied the rules as you like, not according to policy. To eliminate my post but not the other gentlemen's is patently biased. I don't think using conservative news papers and thin references is for a neologism is appropriate, but hey I am in the minority. I want the best for Wikipedia and will continue to donate even if I know people like you are tyrannizing over the process. This term is a joke, you could almost just put it under "kids these days." MHP Huck (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination is at least ill-informed. The term is in wide use online, particularly among right-wing Americans. Whatever may be said about whether the article is adequately sourced or has correct tone, the nomination starts out on the wrong foot with a false claim.--Srleffler (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was made in good faith and I have yet to see it outside of right wing material. The term appears to be mostly international in use. I'd be interested to see a list of deleted neologisms for comparison. MHP Huck (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term as I know it is more of a slur / derogatory term than official. It is close to the term SJW in that it is an insult to those who fit the category, not anywhere near meaningful, and certainly not used by the people it describes. It shows a misunderstanding of the younger generation and their ideals, and hardly merits more than a short paragraph on the Millennials page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.19.93.59 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC) — 8.19.93.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge -> Political correctness /Very weak keep; although I suspect this sorry excuse for a Wikipedia article is staying despite the fact it just about barely scrapes WP:GNG and is used predominantly only by one small group of people, the same that synonymise "European" with "cuck" and such. You know the ones. ☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 22:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a merge. PC is way older than the millenials. Also it does not "barely scrape by" WP:GNG, it passes with flying colors. Your argument sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kleuske (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of evidence that the term is in use and notable. Kleuske (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Generation_Snowflake&oldid=1071783932"