Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kids these days

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 speedy keep. Wrong venue: please use the Requested moves process to rename the article if desired. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Kids these days

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Kids these days (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)

Inadequate terminology in title. I do not think this article has a good title, and it might as well be replaced with other terms, like Criticism of Gen Z. Moreover, the article's a stub. BrightSunMan (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: This probably is a concept that could have a fair amount written about it, but I'm not sure if this is the right title for it and I'm not wholly sure an article like this doesn't already exist. TartarTorte 22:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• "Inadequate terminology in title" isn't a reason to delete, it's a reason to rename the article. I don't think "Criticism of Gen Z" would be appropriate, as I think this article is referring to the sentiment of "Kids these days" throughout all of history, not particularly criticism of today's kids. This should probably be renamed to a descriptive title, since it isn't about the particular phrase itself, but the general concept. An article currently being a stub is also not a reason to delete it. This is a notable topic, though I'm not sure what the best way to cover it would be, but I support keeping the article, with the goal of significant expansion/improvement. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per Elli's points. I agree that the article needs massive improvements, but the topic seems to be notable enough. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 02:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale given. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per above Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 06:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: No policy-based rationale for deletion provided. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

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.