Talk:Generation Z

Nominated by Peregrine981 05:48, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Some, but very little, use of term in sense given in article, but may need editing because my research finds more prevalent use of other senses. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Highly speculative, on the verge of being original research, just a restatement of someone's speculative opinion, adding nothing to the value of wikipedia.

[note: the above was written by Peregrine981 - RedWordSmith 06:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

True, but the "speculative opinion" is that of two highly-respected authors who wrote two best-selling books on the subject in the 1990s (rather surprised no one has actually started an article on The Fourth Turning yet, as has been done for Generations). That said, however, the term "Generation Z" has seen very little actual usage in everyday speech or writing; perhaps someone can jump in and change the article's title? - User:TOttenville8 12:42, 12 Sep 2004 (PDT)
- Rename to what, though? I say keep until a better term comes along, at which point we simply rename this page. -Sean Curtin 00:34, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - In their later book - The Fourth Turning, which came out six years after Generations - William Strauss and Neil Howe use the term "New Silent Generation" (the page shouldn't be deleted altogether though) - User:TOttenville8 03:07 13 Sep 2004 (PDT)
Delete. Speculative, obscure term as title. --Improv 20:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: We also have Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y articles, and Baby Boomer mentions Generation Z. I don't know enough about this kind material to judge whether this should be kept but made more NPOV. I suppose it could be sent to the purgatory of cleanup. Jallan 16:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - I personally have heard and read the term on many occasions. Because it is a real term, it therefore deserves to have a page on wikipedia. As the article points out, Generation Z will be a important subject in the near future. -- Crevaner 16:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
KEEP, for reasons explained above. -- Old Right 16:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Generations (book) where it is already mentioned appropriately. All the rest of the article is futuristic speculation and not appropriate for an encyclopedia even if sourced to the authors of the book. I found no evidence that the phrase "Generation Z" is in sufficient use outside the book to merit a separate article. If the phrase becomes more widely used, the article can be recreated based on its usage at that time. Rossami 23:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - the Generations series of articles is incomplete without it. perhaps some NPOVing? -Jal 11:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Abstain, but I'm reminded of "Bastards of Young": "Willingness to blame us/ We've got no war to name us./ We are the sons of no one,/ Bastards of Young." I should point out that all this lamentable lachrymose nonsense is marketing, just marketing. Give 'em a label and sell them a new version of Pepsi. "Be a rebel! Buy our condoms!" Geogre 19:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
K There's an X and a Y, and I've seen use of Z before even reading the article. Thsi one's a keeper. I'm a Y myself, but never mind ... Chris 00:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not support deletion. Many of the terms for the 19th and 18th century generations outlined are not familiar to most people.

Furthermore, the books Italic textGenerationsItalic text and Italic textFourth TurningItalic text are considered masterpieces of sociological research by many, including myself.

(Reference to above) Forgot to format correctly, my apologies. Part of the votes for deletion debate.

Clarify

This sentence is incredibly hard to understand: "They will be politically active in their more successful stance, and literary and cultural figures and leaders during the next real cultural revolution period to the as-yet-unnamed generation activists born roughly between 2007 and 2023 or 2024, the children of the future "establishment" in corporate, political, and social America, Generation Y, the children of the baby boomers"