- 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generation Q (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)
This article... this article... it has no place in an encyclopedia. Op-ed piece. Unreferenced. Original research. ZS 06:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Surprised that this editor never heard of the more well-known Generation Y. Ziggy said what I totally agree with, that this article is OR, and it is completely wrong. Nate • (chatter) 06:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, blatant, speculative original research that reaches a conclusion generally unsupported by most sources. Very much not suitable material for an encyclopedia. ~ mazca talk 12:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:OR. Joe Chill (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One commentator using this term doesn't justify an article. Ther term has been used elsewhere but for rather different things.--Michig (talk) 21:06, 16 August 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.