Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Beta (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Generation Beta}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Generation Beta}})

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 be studied sociologically. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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

:::I don't think WP:CRYSTALBALL is an issue here. On a pure WP:GNG basis, there's more than enough sourcing for notability. guninvalid (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::I mean, wikipedia will keep getting edited, so of course we can keep it, we just have to constantly update it. (also it's been 10 days since Gen Beta has existed) SeanPlayz9471 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Considering Gen Beta is so new we should keep it it'll just need constant updates, so yeah you're completely right OhioanVlogs (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

• Strong keep The article has citations from [https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Living/generation-names-and-years/story?id=114802892 ABC], [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/generation-beta-starting-2025-ai-tech-like-never-before-rcna184732 NBC], [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/12/31/generation-beta-2025-years/77363820007/ USA Today], [https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gen-beta-gen-alpha-2025-transition-years-when-b2670860.html The Independent], and [https://www.axios.com/2025/01/01/generation-beta-born-2025-2039 Axios], so it passes WP:GNG in a walk. It has [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-30&pages=Generation_Beta 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)
• :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)
• ::I agree, it should just be a short article until we get more info about gen beta and it's habits. 98.45.26.75 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::The topic already has sustained coverage. The primary reference was in March 2024[https://web.archive.org/web/20240325041234/https://mccrindle.com.au/article/generation-beta-defined/], and there was a Business Insider article in August 2024[https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-kids-gen-beta-social-media-realization-2023-8] as well as coverage by lesser known but probably reliable sources. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

: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)

::"mccrindle.com.au" = business web site of the guy who makes up generation names for a living. {{pb}} "yahoo.com" = reposting a list of tweets. {{pb}} "globalnews.ca" = mostly just recycling McCrindle's opinions. A little better than the others, but still not evidence of sustained interest. {{pb}} These are not the kind of sources that one should try to build an encyclopedia article with. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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)
• :Delete, because since Generation X, generations usually last for 16 years. And it says on the Generation Alpha page that the mid-2020s is the end of that generation. And there is no confirmation on where in the mid-2020s on where that generation ends. GuyUser81 (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

:• Indifferent however there needs to be an emphasis placed on it being a proposed generation. As of right now, there is only one single person (Mark McCrindle) who has even defined Generation Beta. Since they have just started being born there isn't any valid data on this group of humans (yet). Mark McCrindle is also a futurist which is sometimes thought of as a pseudoscience. Zillennial (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: After reviewing all sources, it is clear that they support the notoriety on WP:GNG and on WP:SIGCOV the theme is found in reliable and verified sources. 190.219.101.169 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Well... we can always edit it with the most relevant information, for now the material in the wiki is the most relevant we have. SeanPlayz9471 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable per sources, likely to not go away. --cyclopia^speak! 17:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. No requirement that these things be used consistently, just used. Congratulations, it’s a beta. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. We need an article for the successor to Gen Alpha. Reliable sources as noted by others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:Keep. Notability check passes, and if we delete this one, millions of AfCs will pop up to replace it. (communication receptacle) | (PS: Have a good day) 14:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• (editor 2) I want to further add that it is yet unconfirmed that 2025 is the year of the gen beta,there is false information on a wide frame on the internet,plus a recent study confirmed that a generation must atleast be 15 years to end ,and the gen alpha have only been around for 13 years ,thus there are 2 more years until the first REAL gen beta child is born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.174.211 (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• This page is highly inaccurate due to its misleading theories ,and overly exaggerated predictions,to further add,this page might be deemed inaccurate due to GEN BETA not even being a thing yet,each generation lasts 15 years.SINCE THE BEGINNING OF GEN ALPHA only 13 years have passed,thus this page should be deleted,plus this page was made solely by a single guy ,not even a group.Thus this page is factually very incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.208.176 (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete a WP:NEOLOGISM coined and pushed by the company of one man, "per sources" which all promote him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Disagree, wrong on the facts. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanceeliot/2025/01/05/generation-beta-gets-underway-as-beta-babies-arrive-2025--2039-growing-up-amid-ai-agi-and-artificial-superintelligence/ Here is a Forbes article on Generation Beta], doesn’t even mention the one guy. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:Are you sure? Maybe it just needs a bit of editing. I don't like to see articles being deleted. 2601:18E:D102:5BB0:7C30:D04E:26BB:7DF8 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:I disagree. 2601:18E:D102:5BB0:7C30:D04E:26BB:7DF8 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::Like, In a few years we will know lots about Gen Beta. Just leave that article alone. Let it grow. Plus, its Jan 14 today. Major97 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Let's vote on it whether it should be truly worthy of deletion or not. Major97 (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep It checks out notability. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 11:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• If this discussion ends in favor of deletion, redirect to Generation#Western world. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep notable & well discussed topic during the new year. Sources are also correct. Maybe expanded in future gradually.

:Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.