Generation Beta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I really think that it's WP:TOOSOON to have this article. Gen Beta has only existed for eight days right now, there is nothing about them that can be written at this current time. All the predictions on this article (such as AI and automation being part of everyday life) are WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. Not to mention that this entire page is based on the predictions of one guy, Mark McCrindle. I'm not saying that he's necessarily a bad source but he's the only person this article is about. Maybe this page should exist after a few years if/when his predictions come true and gen beta is old enough to actually speak. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The inclusion of the disputed predictions can be discussed in the article talk page, but the page itself should not be deleted.

Firecat93 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But without the crystal ball material, there is literally nothing else to write about. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or, failing that, redirect to Generation#Western world as a neologism that has yet to establish itself. Clickbait "news" stories that just recycle the marketroid glurge from the people who do nothing but generate marketroid glurge are not independent, significant coverage in any meaningful senses of those words. There is, to a good approximation, nothing yet to say about this. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The article has citations from ABC, NBC, USA Today, The Independent, and Axios, so it passes WP:GNG in a walk. It has more than 10,000 pageviews a day, so our readers clearly want it to exist. There isn't much to say about it, but that just means it should remain a short article. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One flash in the pan isn't sustained coverage, and daily pageviews aren't grounds for keeping an article. XOR'easter (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Keep, we literally have articles for every single modern generation, there's already multiple sources talking about it, it's already being spoken about, why do we have to delete every single thing?

https://mccrindle.com.au/article/generation-beta-defined/

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/generation-beta-officially-course-gen-174833690.html

https://globalnews.ca/news/10941362/generation-beta-2025-explained/ Jjbomb (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, since there is no additional source directly defining this generation, other than McCrindle. Furthermore, because 2012 is a widely accepted final birth year for Generation Z, 2013 is considered the starting birth year for Generation Alpha, and an endpoint of 2024 would only make the cohort 12 years long, rather than the usual 16. I am open to further discussion regarding the spans of future generational cohorts. Paleontologist99 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]