Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abolitionist 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionist Generation

This is one of a large series of interlinked articles devoted to extolling the view of American history put forward by historians/lifestyle gurus Strauss and Howe in their book Generations. They think that American history (and English history before America) can be divided into distinct generations, each of which has a distinct archetype, be it 'Hero', 'Artist', 'Nomad', or 'Prophet'. It sounds like cobblers, and most of the articles are wholly uncritical.

I'm nominating this particular article for deletion principally because it's a non-notable neologism, confined to the books of Strauss and Howe. It does not appear to be a widely used historical term, and giving it a separate article undermines Wikipedia's credibility. Nydas^(Talk) 20:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undue weight given to the views of two historians. A lack of sources doesn't help much either. --Folantin 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The William Strauss and Neil Howe books are influential, published by mainstream publishers, and the names they use for each generation are in some use outside of the context of just Strauss and Howe fans. At worst this is comparable to having articles on each Star Trek or South Park episode, what some might consider "fancruft". That and the characterization of the authors as "lifestyle gurus" doesn't reflect well on this nomination. The article does need some work and expansion, starting with an explanation of where the term originated and who coined it. Dragomiloff 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Interesting, googling turns up that this is not a Strauss and Howe term. Strauss and Howe use the name Gilded Generation for this generation. "Abolitionist Generation" does appear to be in some use though. For example: [1] [2]. I still say keep and expand. Dragomiloff 01:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not all the terms they use are in popular usage, Compromise Generation for one. I don't see the problem with describing them as lifestyle gurus, given their website is named Life Course Associates. In any case, since this is not a Strauss and Howe term, it is even less notable than before. One of those sources is a collection of literature essays with no strong connection to the term as defined here, the other is a passing mention.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nydas, I think you are right that there are serious issues with this whole series of articles. All the "names" for generations are or were neologisms, though some have clearly become sufficiently notable for articles (e.g. Greatest generation). Some of the names are basically Strauss and Howe inventions, others are more widely used, and still others are somewhere in between. This one appears to be somewhere in between - I found more mentions of the term in respected sources -[3] [4]. It seems to me that the whole panorama of generation name related articles needs to be cleaned up, perhaps centered around an improved List of generations article. Some of the content from this article could be merged there. It's a can of worms that may be better resolved through a process other than AfD.--Kubigula (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources just use the term in passing, though. It's also unlikely that they refer to 'abolitionist generation' as defined in this article, with a strict start and end date. 'Thatcher generation' gets almost as many Ghits, and includes plenty of respected sources using the term. They're both just a stock phrases, like Red armchair or Second hand car, and not worth including in Wikipedia.

As for the Strauss and Howe generations, I'm concerned that articles on commonly used terms like Generation X are dominated by their perspective. I agree that a list might be more appropriate than a series of articles.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, and I have no heartburn about seeing this article deleted. My larger point is that deleting this one article will do little towards cleaning up the larger morass of the generations articles. If you are using this as a first step towards a larger cleanup, then you have my wholehearted support. It seems to me that the article on the Strauss and Howe book should be expanded a bit to include a little info on each of "their" generational definitions - there's no need to have separate articles for each.--Kubigula (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Generation X for the article improvement drive. That should help a bit.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Re-reading the above discussion, I recalled that "abolitionist generation" is not even the Straus and Howe name for this generation. Therefore, I agree that this needs to be deleted as an insufficiently sourced and notable neologism. At most, it could be listed as one name on the "List of generations". I still hope that some bold editor(s) will tackle the current generations scheme and template.--Kubigula (talk) 16:53, 9 January 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.