Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones

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. SynergeticMaggot 00:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep this page. While the term is not as widely in use as Boomers or Gen X, it turns up plenty of results in a lexis-nexis search. The term to be used to describe the generation born between 1954-1964 is still being debated, but this is one of the more frequently referenced. It has as much of a reason to be on this site as many other entries.

[edit] Generation Jones

Not notable; advertising. This guy coins this term, he writes a book, and I don't actually see that it has caught on - about 1850 ghits for "generation jones", 1660 for "Jonathan Pontell". For comparison, 'generation x' gets well over 2 million. --Brianyoumans 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Update - Redoing my search, I think my statistics above came from Yahoo search, not Google. "Generation Jones" actually gets about 13000 Google hits, "Jonathan Pontell" about 26000 - so this is a bit more notable than I thought. I still think it is kind of lame - "generation x" gets almost 4 million on Google. --Brianyoumans 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep I've written a fair bit of stuff criticising this kind of generational categorisation, and the term comes up fairly regularly - on a quick search, I found five independent allusions in discussions where I've been involved. JQ 07:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep/Expand not a hoax. C56C 08:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I didn't claim that this was a hoax, I said that it didn't seem to be notable. The article seems to be rather inaccurate in that it claims that the term has become popular and is increasing in use, when in fact it seems to be rarely used. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1260568/posts One representative page I saw] (from 2004) was a posting of an article using the term prominently - and a large number of the comments underneath were from people saying, "Generation Jones? I've never heard that term. Where did it come from?" My favorite comment was "More marketing b.s. from a pollster trying to make a name for himself." Brianyoumans 09:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup — passes Google test Martinp23 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've never heard of it either, but fortunately I'm not the arbiter of verifiability here. :-) Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 21:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per John Quiggin. --Daniel Olsen 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree with any notion of a "Google test", since 99% of the stuff on the web doesn't meet WP:RS. That said, there are a fair number of reliable sources out there for this term: CNN[1], The Cincinnati Enquirer[2], The Columbia Daily Tribune[3], Scoop (news website)[4], Entrepreneur magazine[5], etc. As such, the article needs cleanup, not deletion. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that the concept was certainly in the public eye, for a brief period of time in association with the release of the book. All of the examples you give are stories about the book. I'm just not sure whether the term has had much life outside of Pontell's book. But obviously I'm on the losing side here... Brianyoumans 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Where else can I go to look up a term I've never heard of before? I'm glad Wikipedia has a definition.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.17.172.5 (talk • contribs)

  • Keep. I have heard this term discussed in the media and other places outside the context of Pontell's book, and discussed (and criticized) by other generational historians like William Strauss and Neil Howe. "Generation X" originated with a book too. KleenupKrew 04:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
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.