Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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,

  • 18 are by or about Jonathan Pontell,
  • 4 are dead links
  • 3 Reference a marketing firm Carat
  • 2 don't reference the subject of the article
  • 2 references Roland Martin (who only mentions the name on TV)
  • 1 references Rasmussen
  • 1 references Research2000

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]

  • Strong Delete Original research and failure to maintain neutral POV. I do agree that the term is notable. However, the primary claim of the page -- that GJ exists as a sociologically meaningful measure -- is unquestionably original research. The rest of the page is useless if that claim is challenged. Worse, the GJ spam has now spread into all the generation pages. RollandWaters (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Did anyone do a google news archive search? [1] shows a wealth of good sources discussing this term in detail. [2], [3], [4]. Yes, the term was coined by Jonathan Pontell but it appears to have attracted a great deal of attention in mainstream media outlets. This source (not public access): [5] discusses the origin of the term (which goes back to 1972). If you want really iron-clad proof that the term has grown beyond just this one man, do a google news archive search for "Generation Jones" -Pontell: [6]. Over 3/4ths as many hits as the full search. There is absolutely no question of notability for me, based on these sources. Cazort (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response With all due respec Cazort, so many of the news articles refer the Gen Jones as 'according to Jonathan' or 'Jonathan says ...' for example your Ref No2, If the news report said "Joe Blogs thinks Jonathan is on to something" that would be crediable. Ref No.3 even says it could be a sock puppet article. Ref No. 4 is "According to Jonathan" as is ref No.5. To me these appear to be Media copy. Also see my Response to Peregrine981. A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response OK ref 7 is getting close, someone mentions Jones as a possible seperation, but then suggests other methods are more appropriate. Ref 8 similar to 7, in a 20 page atricle Gen Jones appears once as something sometimes inserted, along with baby busters. Ref 9 again in the 3 page article Gen Jones is listed once, "as others argue" (this appears to be the best Reference so far, but does not discuss the merits of the concept).A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 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]
  • Strong Keep There are lots of references in this article that are definitely not original research. Just because an article references the coiner of a term doesn't make it original research. The editor who proposed this deletion must not understand the meaning of original research on Wikipedia because this article doesn't even come close to fitting this category. Definite keep.BaseballCap (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Clearly is an established term, widely discussed in at least the AMerican media. It at least merits a wiki page discussing the term, whether or not you believe it is "really a generation." Peregrine981 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a good example of how nominations for deletion should NOT be used. Of course, this article should not be deleted. The cites in the article are not "original research", I could only find one by Pontell. In addition to the many non-original research cites in the article, Google is loaded with non-original research for this term.MMBBTT (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Only One is attributed to Pontell if you exclude his web site references, but as above, does someone reading a press release make somthing worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 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]
  • Keep It is nothing short of outrageous to nominate this article for deletion, and worse…with the ridiculous claim that it is Original Research. The editor who proposed this deletion—Ayager-- is either guilty of deliberate bad faith editing, or complete ignorance about the relevant Wikipedia rules. Either way, he/she should be carefully watched to see if this kind of behavior continues.
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]
    • Response So when an article states that "according to Jonathan Pontell" and even includes the same text of a Bio as unrelated article is that informed discussion of a concept. I though for a moment that the peer reviewed article by Cazort might give substance, but I was disappointed. I would welcome specifc references to articles that discuss the concept not just read from a press release.A. Yager (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (obvi): This nomination, as well as the two previous, is total nonsense. The article has for some time needed serious clean-up, but a look at the article when it was first and second nominated shows that even if the term is closely associated with Pontell, there's no way to read WP:V or WP:N to say that the article should be deleted. I always want to AGF, but the persistence of these objections makes me wonder if there's something more to this. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Yes, there is more to this. You can read the GJ:talk page for more history and develop your own opinion, but I personally believe there has been significant sock puppeting and un-necessary attacks on good faith efforts on the part of anybody not on the GJ bandwagon. There have been other, non-wikipedia instances of apparent sock puppeting. I posted some examples to Arthur Rubin's talk page where they are still present.RollandWaters (talk) 00:47, 27 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]

  • Response Yes, you're right...this nomination (and the previous ones) is total nonsense. And you are also right in noticing what I, and several other editors, have pointed out before: there is something more to this, there are a few editors who have strong personal agendas against the increasing popularity of Generation Jones, and they repeatedly use innapropriate tactics like this to try slow its spread and try to undermine it. It's obvious to any editor who is familiar with Wikipedia rules that this article isn't even remotely an article that should be deleted, yet this is the third time it's been tried. Each time, the nomination is based on ridiculous reasons, each time, the overwhelming consensus is to "keep". Yet these few editors keep trying with a variety of innapropriate tags and other tricks. I think it's genuinely sad for Wikipedia readers that there are editors who put their own personal agendas ahead of trying to help create objectively accurate articles. This isn't intended as a personal attack on any particlular editor, and I'm making a point of not even naming any specific editor; it is rather a response of agreement to your observation that it seems like "there's something more to this" nomintion.TreadingWater (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum My concern is that no one is using the term is a 'positive' or 'negative' way only as a sideline to their own point and a lot of it appears to be 'copy' that is 'Accodring to Jonathan'. Quote from Wikipedia:No_original_research

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]
  • Comment I'd like to address the additional comments by the editor who proposed the deletion of this article, but I want to be careful to not give the impression that I am personally attacking him, which I'm not. My comments here are about his edits, not him as a person. His edits yesterday basically tried to make the case that the references in this article are original research because they mention the person (Pontell) who coined the term "Generation Jones". This is completely untrue and was overwhelmingly rejected by editors who virtually all voted to "keep" rather than "delete" the article. Since that approach failed, now his edits are trying to give the impression that the references in the article are all primarily reporters parroting a press release. I'm guessing this approach is tried with the hope/asumption that many editors won't take the time to actually look at the references. I encourage any editor who wants to weigh in on this nomination to please read the actual references. If you do, you'll see that virtually none of the references have any mention of a press release nor in any way are connected to any press release. The truth is, as anyone who does even a bit of research on this will quickly discover, that many reliable published sources discuss Generation Jones, and that many credible prominent commentators, experts and journalists argue for the existence of Generation Jones using their own analysis without referring to Pontell's analysis at all. This nomination for deletion is completely baseless.TreadingWater (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Could you please give cite specific examples of an author other than Pontell arguing for the existence of Generation Jones? Virtually all of what I come up with on a Google search is either a reference back to the page, a quote, or what looks suspiciously like SEO-generated content. RollandWaters (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Sure, I’d be happy to give some specific examples. Google has hundreds of articles by writers other than Pontell who argue strongly for Generation Jones. But I don’t need to go to Google, I can just use examples which are already references in this Wikipedia GenJones article being nominated for deletion. Here’s just a few examples from that Wiki article, there are tons more in many prominent newspapers and magazines. Can you honestly say these references are not reliable published sources, but instead fit the definition of Wikipedia Original Research?

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]

      • Response to Response Link by link, since your links, while present in the markup, are broken:

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 The nominator must not understand what WP:Original research means. Try re-reading it carefully. If someone coins a term and multiple reliable and independent sources then talk about it, it cannot be "original research" in the negative sense of the term in Wikipedia. In the previous deletion debate, I said "see CNN [10] for an example of the substantial coverage of this 53,000,000 strong (U.S.) demographic group. See also Telegraph.co.uk [11] and Timesonline.co.uk [12] which said the term's "electoral influence" gives it "staying power" to demonstrate its coverage in other English speaking countries. Clearly Pontell's coinage is not as commonly used as generation X (29,600 cites[13])or Baby Boomer (55,500 cites[14]) but the term has enough use in the mainstream news media, with in depth discussion rather than passing mention, to justify an article." If several sources mention Pontell, that in no way argues for deleting this article as original research. It is also not very compelling when the nominator claims that Timesonline, Telegraph and CNN "merely reprint press releases." That would make them not reliable sources. To the contrary, they are thought of as reliable sources, since they have named authors of pieces and an editorial board, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Ayager should study WP:RS. Edison (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Edison, the disagreement is not that GJ is not notable. Both AYager and I agree that it is notable. The disagreement is for the claims in the article, which are original research as they have not been verified by any other researchers. No amount of reporting changes whether or not the research is original. Yet the page reports the research as fact, and the pro-GJ editors have removed all indication, in this article and other articles, that there is any other notion of either the baby boomers or GenX. If the page was to maintain a true neutral POV, on the research as research, then I would fully support it. What we have now is a continual breach of WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Upon close inspection of a number of editors we probably also have WP:PROMOTION. And of course, even on this page, with the lack of AFG towards myself and AYager, we now have WP:BATTLE, as has been the case for a very long time on the GJ Talk page. I'm certainly open to alternatives, perhaps what AYager suggested, perhaps a Pontell / GJ combination page? RollandWaters (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I AGREE WITH ALL THE OTHERS THAT SAY THIS IS TOTAL NONSENSE AND RIDICULOUS. AT MY OFFICE, WE HAVE A WHOLE FOLDER FILLED WITH ARTICLES ABOUT GENERATION JONES (WHICH WE USE FOR TARGETING MARKETING PURPOSES), AND GENERATION JONES IS PART OF THE VOCABULARY FOR SEVERAL OTHER MARKETING COMPANIES THAT I KNOW. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVEN READ ANYTHING BY PONTELL ABOUT THIS. THE NOMINATOR OF THIS DELETION AND THE ONE EDITOR WHO AGREES (ROLAND WATERS) APPARENTLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE ACTUAL GROUNDS ARE FOR DELETION OF A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Waiting for any of the hundreds of references How about we stop debating about press releases and news sources, just start providing a list of relevant and descriptive articles, or just delete it. A. Yager (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two editors who keep pushing for deletion have presented very weak arguments. Roland's huge focus on whether there is sock puppetry and battling and promotion has nothing to do whether this article should be deleted. A.Yager's 'still waiting for references' comment is difficult to comprehend since there already are more than enough references here to augment keeping this article in Wikipedia.Benny winston (talk) 19:50, 30 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]

  • Keep. The nominator doesn't understand the idea of original research, and neither does RollandWaters. Generation Jones is an idea that's caught on in reliable sources. Trying to suppress it by deleting this page won't work, it would be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Argue against the concept and rant against Pontell all you like elsewhere, but don't bring that agenda here. This argument to delete is plain old WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there is criticism of the idea of Generation Jones in reliable sources (and "Savvy Boomer" isn't that), then include them in the article. Fences and windows (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The baby boomers were born from 1945-1963, not generation jones..... South Bay (talk) 09:25, 30 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]
  • Keep There is enough coverage of this concept in reliable sources for an article on this topic to exist. The article probably needs major editing to emphasize that this is (mainly?) a theory of Jonathan Pontell but there is enough coverage for a viable article here. Davewild (talk) 14:48, 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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Generation_Jones_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1145539564"