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 keep. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Generation Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is Original Research of Jonathan Pontell, unsupported by others. There are 26 References listed in the article (including duplicates) Of those references,

Further a search of the Library of the University I work for results in two hits, again one for Jonathan and the other a US News Wire. There is no scholarly debate on the subject of this article.

Googling the term results in 43,000 hits, The top 9 refernece Johnathan, over then next 30 they either reference Wikipedia mirrors, Jonathan, or ask "What it this?" A. Yager (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • An overwhelming majority of the articles I found do not even mention Pontell, as I showed above. Cazort (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds that you're making the argument that the concept needs to be accepted as somehow "meritous"...this is not really what notability is about...it's about being noted, recorded. It could be a totally bogus concept, but if it's mentioned in enough detail in reliable sources to write a tightly-sourced article from reliable sources, it is notable. I personally haven't formed an opinion on whether or not this is a useful or meaningful subject--but it seems to have more than enough usage to be solidly notable. Cazort (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrawal my keep. The GenJones spam is a huge problem. If the Jones boosters could keep to their own article, it might be different. As mentioned, Pontell's references have infected a dozen articles; always as spam and viciously defended by a couple of users.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the entirety of Ayager’s “argument” is that if a reliable published source discussing a term happens to mention the name of the person who coined that term, then suddenly that reliable published source is no longer a reliable published source. So when Jonathan Alter wrote a column in Newsweek arguing for the existence of Generation Jones, and Alter happened to mention Pontell’s name once, as the coiner of the term, that mention of Pontell magically transformed Newsweek from a reliable published source into Wikipedia Original Research. Beyond absurd. The same apparently for all the other well-known writers and experts (e.g. Clarence Page, Peter Fenn, David Brooks, etc., etc.) who have written extensively in very credible reliable published sources (e.g. New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, etc., etc.) about, and supportive of, Generation Jones. Many of these articles contain detailed analysis by the writers about why they feel strongly about the existence and importance of Generation Jones. But if any of them happen to mention Pontell’s name, Ayager would have us believe they are no longer reliable published sources.
Fellow editors: please do not be taken in by Ayager’s complete misrepresentation here, and take a look at the actual references in the article and you will see that Ayager’s nomination for deletion is unequivocally without merit.TreadingWater (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I JUST DID READ THOSE PAGES, MR. WATERS, AND THE MAIN THING WHICH STRIKES ME IS THAT YOU SEEM TO HAVE AN AMAZING ANTI-GENERATION JONES OBSSESSION. IT'S CLEAR YOU HAVE VERY STRONG PERSONAL FEELINGS AGAINST THIS CONCEPT AND NAME, BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR YOU TO VENT THOSE FEELINGS. I ASSUME YOU ARE ONE OF THE MAIN EDITORS WHO HAS BEEN REFERRED TO AS TRYING TO PUSH YOUR PERSONAL AGENDA AHEAD OF OBJECTIVE EDITING WITH THESE GENERATION JONES PAGES. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT THAT SOME EDITORS HAVE BEEN TOO AGGRESSIVE OR SOCK PUPPETS, THAT IS NOT GROUNDS FOR DELETION OF AN ARTICLE. I UNDERSTAND YOU STRONGLY WISH GENERATION JONES HADN'T DEVELOPED THE FOLLOWING IT HAS, BUT IT HAS, AND YOUR PASSIONATE ATTEMPT TO TRY SOMEHOW TO HAVE THIS PAGE DELETED IS MISGUIDED AND NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF WIKIPEDIA USERS. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD ASK YOURSELF WHY THE CONSENSUS OF EDITORS HERE IS SO AGAINST YOUR OPINION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see these sections of Verifiability for exceptions.

A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this long article in England’s “Sunday Times”, prominent journalist Cosmo Landesman gives a very detailed analysis of Generation Jones. Experts are quoted supporting the GenJones construct; Pontell is never mentioned:[1]

In this article, widely-respected MSNBC commentator Peter Fenn strongly makes the case, in “The Hill”, that Generation Jones was very important in the 2008 US election. While he briefly mentions Pontell in one sentence, the rest of the article is entirely Fenn’s own analysis of Generation Jones and its importance:[2]

In this article in London’s’s prestigious newspaper “The Times”, journalist David Rowan declares that Generation Jones is the “one freshly identified demographic with a future”. While Rowan briefly mentions Pontell, he offers his own analysis and quotes a top UK pollster—Andrew Hawkins--who emphasizes the importance of Generation Jones in the UK election:[3]

Here’s an audio file, accompanied by brief text, of the head of the top polling firm Mason-Dixon—Brad Coker--sharing his detailed analysis of why he believes that Generation Jones was the decisive vote in the 2004 US election, based on a large amount of Mason-Dixon polling data. It’s titled “Pollster says Generation Jones tipped election for Bush”:[4]

Here’s commentator David Paulsen’s detailed analysis about Generation Jones in “The Huffington Post”. Pontell is mentioned briefly in one sentence; otherwise, it’s all Paulsen’s original analysis about Generation Jones and its key role:[5]

Note that none of the above references are in any way connected to any press release, as AYager alleges.TreadingWater (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article396396.ece : no research; a person's commentary on being identified as GJ.

http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/10/23/why-the-%E2%80%98generation-jones%E2%80%99-vote-may-be-crucial-in-election-2008/ : commentary assuming the existence of GJ

http://www.davidrowan.com/2005/05/times-op-ed-guide-to-electionspeak.html : commentary, again assumes existence of GJ

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2004/12/09_genjones2/ : commentary based on notes.

I certainly agree these are not connected to press releases; these kinds of links are why I believe the term is notable. However, notability is not sufficient; it has to be not a soap box, not original research, not a lot of things. You have yet to show that there is independent research proving that this demographic is real. Until then, original research and failure to maintain neutral POV. RollandWaters (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one isn't even close...of course there should be an article about Generation Jones in this encyclopedia. The references I reviewed in the existing article are obviously more than enough to justify inclusion. This isn't at all close to Original Research. Not to gang up on the two editors who argue for deletion, but I have to concur with the other editors here: it does seem like neither of you understands the proper rules for deletion. None of the arguments either of you have made feel valid to me. Whether there is a Generation Jones or not is another question, but there definitely should be an article about it in this encyclopedia.SallyRide (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? If there are sources that argue against Generation Jones, present them and include them in the article! Fences and windows (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to whom? I agree with Fences and Windows...South Bay has not presented an appropriate basis for deletion. It doesn't matter that he happens to hold an alternative view of what the generation boundaries are, that is no basis for deletion of this article. I wish editors would read the rules for deletion before making their edits.Benny winston (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP I've carefully read through the Generation Jones article, its Talk Page, and all the comments on this deletion discussion page. It is crystal clear that: 1) this article should NOT be deleted 2) there are a few editors who have some kind of personal agenda against this concept who continually try innapropriate edits to achieve their personal agendas. I wish Wikipedia could find a way to effectively deal with rogue editors who act in ways like this which hurt Wikipedia.Benny winston (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be provided. TreadingWater and others have maintained that this generation is established, but have been unable or unwilling to provide sources other than the creator of the name. None have yet appeared in the article. I think we've given the article creators enough time to find references; we must assume, in good faith, that there aren't any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments above. I provide a vast number of sources, some with extensive coverage, and an overwhelming majority not making any reference to the originator of the term, Jonathan Pontell. The deletion discussion is to focus on what sources are out there, not on what ones have been integrated into the article yet. I usually refrain from adding sources to articles up for deletion because I don't want to waste time and have my work deleted. Cazort (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bottom line: despite the back and forth on this page, it is most relevant to note that the overwhelming consensus is to not delete this article…I count 13 votes to “keep”.

The only couple of editors who the nominator has been able to get support from are the editors who were already long-time anti-Generation Jones advocates who have repeatedly been accused by other editors of putting their personal biases against GenJones ahead of Wikipedia accuracy.

Virtually all the other editors have not been involved in editing this article before, reviewed this nomination with objective eyes, and concluded the article should be kept. The same thing has happened when this article was nominated for deletion before—virtually every editor voted to “keep”.

It is difficult to know how to address the couple anti-GenJones editors. I will try here, with the intention of addressing their edits, not them as people. In other words, my comments here are criticism of the content of their edits, not personal attacks against them.

The primary claim of these two editors—Arthur Rubin and Rolland Waters—and the nominator—Ayager—is that there are no other references/sources for Generation Jones besides those from the term’s coiner—Pontell. They claim this despite the many valid third party references in the article. They claim this despite editor after editor pointing out the many third party valid references in the article.

These references in the article include articles and videos of many prominent journalists supporting Generation Jones, like Clarence Page, Jonathan Alter, Peter Fenn, David Brooks, and Karen Tumulty in reliable sources like Newsweek, The New York Times, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, The Chicago Tribune, etc., etc.

These references in the article include serious research done on Generation Jones: Big polling firm Mason-Dixon’s major study of GenJones voters which was covered by many top media outlets. Pollster Scott Rasmussen’s study of over 20,000 voters which made important conclusions about GenJones voters. The large media company Carat’s huge research study (reportedly costing over 100,000 UK pounds) about GenJones consumers which was covered by over 20 large newspapers. The qualitative research (focus groups) done by the large UK newspaper The Independent on UK GenJones voters.

Despite these and many other references, the anti-GenJones editors say there are no references. It’s like someone saying it’s snowing outside when really it’s 80 degrees and sunny. Why do they do this when anyone can easily just look at the article’s references and see the truth? Perhaps these edits are made with the hope that an administrator will be lazy and not bother to check to see if there really are valid third party references in the article. Perhaps these edits are made with the hope of goading editors into making angry personal attacks. Perhaps these edits are made to vindictively force other editors to have to waste time defending the truth. I don’t know the motivation of these edits, but they are difficult to comprehend.

Thankfully, edits like these have failed over and over, and the consensus approach of Wikipedia continues to succeed, which gives hope to all of us who care about Wikipedia.TreadingWater (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Let's try to stay respectful here and try to keep our comments short and to the point. I think the sources, arguments people have made speak for themselves. Cazort (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I like the article, and I think we should keep it. I don't have a reason, just that I'm an inclusionist. TheSavageNorwegian 21:35, 31 May 2009 (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.
  1. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article396396.ece
  2. ^ http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/10/23/why-the-%E2%80%98generation-jones%E2%80%99-vote-may-be-crucial-in-election-2008/
  3. ^ http://www.davidrowan.com/2005/05/times-op-ed-guide-to-electionspeak.html
  4. ^ http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2004/12/09_genjones2/
  5. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-paulsen/attention-genyers-talk-to_b_137937.html
More