Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilded Generation

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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilded Generation

One of many pages dedicated to a single popular book, by Strauss and Howe; serves mostly to promote their consulting business. Not used at all by academics. Deserves one article, not 30. Moreover, very confusing, given widespread use of US Gilded Age, with entirely different dates. Truly below Wikipedia's standards. Dylanfly 16:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Generations (book). There seems to be far too much coverage of Strauss and Howe's pop sociology in Wikipedia; to justify articles on every single generation it would be useful if someone could establish that their generational listings had been accepted by other authors as well. --Metropolitan90 17:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
while the afd is going is a good time to improve articles, so i removed the list of the 100 or so people born during the 2 decades. That is the epitome of non-encyclopedic content. As for he article, I notice there are no sources, so, even as improved,
'delete unless sourced.'DGG (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Perhaps some of the material could be merged, but eliminating this article should be the priority. Hawkestone 16:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm allowed to chime in on my own nomination, but a MERGE could work, as far as I'm concerned. I just think its preposterous to have the Strauss and Howe stuff encompass 30 of its own wikipedia articles. I nominated Republican Generation for delete, but it was kept. That and this and a dozen others could be piled onto ONE page for Strauss and Howe's cheesy work. --Dylanfly 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism which doesn't appear to be studied outside of this book. Cool Hand Luke 09:19, 4 August 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.