Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of generations
Nom did not really provide a good rational for deletion, but there is an excellent one--this article, like the template folks have mentioned, violates  and also .  In particular look at the "List of Generations Chart."  Where does that come from?  It is obviously not based on any reliable sources.  Like the whole article it is a mish-mash of Strauss and Howe and, well, other stuff.  None of it is cited.  Who decided that the Beat Generation was a "sub-generation" and of what is it a sub-generation?  Same goes for every other "sub-generation."  Obviously someone just made this all up out of whole cloth. The chart is pure, unadulterated OR (thus we get howlers like the idea that the Interbellum Generation--that article itself is pure OR and should be AfD'd--is a group whose main "notable occurence", whatever that means, was the "Roaring Twenties" and not the Great Depression).  AfD is not a vote, and keep voters must respond to the point that this violates  or deletion is a must.  Most of this is related to Strauss and Howe and we already have a bunch of articles on their theories, so this "list" article (which because of its very listish nature deserves particular scrutiny) serves as little more than an internal link farm for Strauss and Howe related articles.  The Japanese-American generations are thrown in too, but we already have articles on them, and they seem to be included simply because there are names for, and therefore articles on, these generations and therefore they can be put in a list (prove me wrong an add in a bunch of other generations for other "hyphenated" Americans).  If someone can explain to me what useful purpose this serves and how this does not violate our core policies on original research and synthesis I'll reconsider my comment, but I'm skeptical that anyone will be able to do that
— User:Bigtimepeace, 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:SYN||WP:OR (Wikipedia:No original research)