Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination)
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
— User:RollandWaters, 15:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTOPINION||WP:NOTSOAPBOX||WP:PROMOTION||WP:BATTLE (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)