Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of American Baby Boomers

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of American Baby Boomers

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

The only list that isn't a redlink is up for deletion, as it should be. Some humongous portion of the US population was born in a somewhat arbitrarily-delimited time period. Making long lists of people who happen to fall into this period is a bad idea, so making lists of those lists is a bad idea as well. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arbitrary list that's doesn't seem encyclopedic. Grammarphile (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list would have to include hundreds of thousands of people to be comprehensive, which would clearly be a bit insane. It's just an arbitrary list with no value. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no complete list of Baby boomers out there, and the term get's thrown around in culture so often it would be useful to have a list. There are a few people listed already on the Baby boomer article, so I though I'd expand it further. Also we have Lists of African Americans, Lists of Jews which are larger still and also hard to define.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're the creator of the article, naturally you'd like it to be kept. I have one question: Do you plan on adding every single person born within a set time period to this list? If not, the article will have no encyclopaedic value. If yes, it'll still have no value - and saying "there are other lists" doesn't make a difference. Problems with other articles don't excuse problems with this one. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the issue of exactly who is a baby boomer is not well-defined at the trailing edge; the demographers and the social scientists see different (and in the case of the latter varied) cut-off bands. That difference is an issue because while African-Americans and Jews have social consequences of being minorities with their own characteristic subcultures, there isn't such commonality over boomers, however you delineate them. As someone born in 1960 I do not see myself as a boomer, nor my younger siblings, and my life experience doesn't fit with the stereotypes of boomer life, in no small part because I was too young to have typical boomer experiences. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Grammarphile and the nom. Also this list fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1 as it is a list of loosely related people. KAP03^Talk 18:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reason "there's no complete list of baby boomers out there" is because there doesn't need to be — the term encompasses every single person born between 1946 and 1964, with some fuzziness around the back end. Firstly, that means a person can be easily identified as "baby boomer" or "not baby boomer" just by looking at the birthdate in their article. Secondly, it means that the lists would have to include a huge proportion of all the people in the United States who have articles at all — making the lists effectively unmaintainable because one would have no time left to do anything at all if one constantly had to scan Wikipedia for missing entries. Thirdly, the lack of other lists of this topic means that the act of compiling one here constitutes original research. There's just no encyclopedic value to listing people by their demographic generation — that's what the Category:1946 births through Category:1964 births categories are for. Bearcat (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "As someone born in 1960 I do not see myself as a boomer", that is because you are not Mangoe, you are a Cusper. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas! I am a man without a demographic! Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have "lists of" navigational pages when we have more than one "list of" to point to. No objection to recreation if that time comes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 20:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. Topic far too vague to be considered for a stand alone list. Ajf773 (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update This article has been made completely pointless as the one bluelinked article List of American writers of the Baby boomer generation (AfD) has been deleted. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 04:40, 10 January 2017 (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.