Deletion of Generation Jones (3rd nomination)

Comment: The nominator must not understand what riginal 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 http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/05/generation.jones/index.html for an example of the substantial coverage of this 53,000,000 strong (U.S.) demographic group. See also Telegraph.co.uk http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/1370503/Generation-Jones-comes-of-age-in-time-for-election.html and Timesonline.co.uk http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election2005/article519658.ece 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 citeshttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22generation+x%22&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r)or Baby Boomer (55,500 citeshttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22baby+boomer%22&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r) 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Orphan (WP:O||WP:RS)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: 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  and .  Upon close inspection of a number of editors we probably also have .  And of course, even on this page, with the lack of AFG towards myself and AYager, we now have , 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTOPINION||WP:NOTSOAPBOX||WP:PROMOTION||WP:BATTLE)

Comment: 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   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Jones&oldid=69138021 first and   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Jones&oldid=220921154 second nominated shows that even if the term is closely associated with Pontell, there's no way to read  or  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)