Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interbellum 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.

Interbellum Generation

Interbellum Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No reputable source available to verify article information, all definitions of "Interbellum Generation" cite Wikipedia. Mentions of "Interbellum Generation" exist in literary archives, however are too obscure and/or irrelevant to be considered applicable.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 00:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - there are plenty of google books and google scholar results for "interbellum generation" and "interwar generation". It is also, apparently, a valid sub-field of study, for instance Harold Innis is called the dominant figure in the study of the interwar generation in Canada here[1]. There are also plenty of discussions of this generation as a group in sociology and economics literature. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Nominating this article for discussion is the only edit by the nominator, User:Interbellian. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem would you possibly consider closing this AfD in light of the fact the nominating editor didn't do a BEFORE and basically lied in their rationale? L3X1◊distænt write◊ 02:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L3X1 I've watchlisted this discussion and will consider an early close if consensus appears to be established. However, while I agree that there appears to have been a lapse in BEFORE, that is not by itself grounds for a speedy close. Beyond which I think we need to AGF bearing in mind that incompetence is not the same thing as malice and we don't have evidence of motive or deliberate prevarication. Keeping a discussion open until we reach consensus rarely is a source of harm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. It isn't all obvious wiki book spam (usage dates back to the 70s at least, and sources vary between themselves). There are however a number of different definitions - they all try to shoot to a generation in its prime between 1919-39 (but too young for WWI (the Lost generation), too old for frontline WWII grunt service (G.I generation)), however birth date ranges vary between definition (1895-1906, 1900-1910, 1901-1913). There is use of the term both in regards to American and European literature and arts. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10].Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge to G.I. Generation (or Greatest Generation). This article already concedes the overlap, and the target article would benefit from expanded scope. Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to
  G.I. Generation. The term is notable per the sources identified in the above discussion but there is a reasonable argument that the reader's understanding might be improved by situating this discussion within the additional context of the larger cohort. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2018 (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.