Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination)
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 
— User:Edison, 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:O||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Orphan)