Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomer lit

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. ✗plicit 02:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer lit

Boomer lit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article reflects a literary genre that doesn't exist. It’s a tag on Goodreads. Google Scholar returns nothing of note other than one article which mentions the Goodreads page. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No source indicates that this is an actual genre.
  SPEAK 23:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A neologism that has received pretty much no critical attention. Seems to have originated with this blog. The strongest evidence I could find for its existence was this Telegraph article that outright admits "Boomer lit is relatively hard to come across if you don't know what you're looking for." The few GScholar results I found on it seem to equivocate Boomer lit with
  (shoot) 04:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Notability is not inherited, fails GNG. Kieem trra (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with inherited notability?

SPEAK 16:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@KidAd: My guess is that they mean notability isn't inherited, in this case, from matron literature. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No indepth sources available. fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above delete !votes. Two refs from 2013 doesn't cut it. Jusdafax (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2021 (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.