Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Scout 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 (closing as speedy/early delete). Made up one day, neologism, recreation of deleted page, etc. Neutrality^talk 18:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Scout Generation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject seems to be a neologism made up by the article creator. Sources listed do not mention the term. LadyofShalott 03:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a bad article, but WP:NEO pretty much sums it up. The article was speedied before and I explained the reason why to the creator but he just recreated the article the exact same way, so now I'm sensing a bit of WP:IDHT. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be an attempt to popularize a term via Wikipedia. Sources don't support the term, and the article arguably overstates the concepts portrayed in the sources Much of the article has nothing to do with the sources and appears to be editorializing. LifeCourse (Howe and Strauss) is a marketing consultancy; while their opinions are interesting, I'm not convinced that their opinions should have such weight. The Newsweek article just refers back to Howe and Strauss. Several editors have explained the problems to the original editor, but no significant improvement has taken place. I still haven't figured out what this has to do with scouting. Acroterion (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to "I still haven't figured out what this has to do with scouting", I believe the article creator is calling today's youth a "Boy Scout" generation. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably what they were aiming for; it's another example of OR or just plain personal opinion. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: I promised to !vote here, so here's my !vote. This is a protologism. Not only is it original research, it's not even good original research. The article could do with some poll results and other statistics. Instead we just get claims that kindergarten kids "played soldiers" after 9/11. Also, some of Madison '95's claims have to be called into question if you examine the data that does exist; this article is a good place to start. There are references tacked tendentially at the end, but these are very tangential and may be an example of references that do not support what she claims they support. To top it off, I should note that this article contains some POV, like "vulgar Xers". The POV can be fixed, but the OR issue cannot. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - violates WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and the rest. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (a Boomer who was a Scout, but who sees none of these traits among his daughter's peers)[reply]
Strong delete. "New Scout Generation" is a pure neologism; it gets a grand total of 10 Google hits, the majority of which are from Wikipedia or its mirrors, and the rest of which are references to a single post on a message board (not a reliable source) which isn't even discussing the same topic covered by this article. The article's claims about trends and opinions among the generation under discussion are not backed up by any inline citations. I agree with Acroterion that this appears to be either original research or just personal opinion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - The New Scout Generation is real. It is exactly like this. Anyone who knows at least five young people should know this. Madison '95 (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give any reliable sources for it? (Hint: knowing 5 young people doesn't cut it, and neither does what is listed in the article). LadyofShalott 05:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an essay, and it appears that the subject may not even exist by that name, much less be wp:notable. After a quick read it looks like it isn't even mentioned in the sources given. North8000 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, salt and stomp on the grave, it's OR and portrays Scouting erroneously, should have just been speedied.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was, twice: it came back. Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass the salt, please!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2011 (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.