Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheet of Integrity

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 merge to Mike and Mike in the Morning. WjBscribe 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sheet of Integrity

Sheet of Integrity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article discusses a current phenomenon on the Mike and Mike show on ESPN, which I listen to sometimes. A whole book might be written about it, and it still wouldn't be notable. It's nothing more than a playful competition between the two radio hosts. YechielMan 09:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete per WP:NEO - the references verify that the term exists, but nothing to suggest that it's in widespread use. Delete unless independent sources are provided to demonstrate this. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the term is coming into widespread use, and a simple Google search shows that it's at least being used outside of the show itself in sports media and people following NCAA brackets. A few references include the Ottumwa Courier, the Dayton Daily News, the Nuences County Record Star, and the Roanoke Times. Sure, there's no New York Times or Washington Post there, but all the more evident that even in the small-town newspapers in diverse areas of the country, the phrase is picking up more common use. Plus, as far as a sports term goes, when you've got a corporate sponsor plus the whole of ESPN using it, it means something. Robologna 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment One problem with using the fact that "small-town newspapers in diverse areas of the country" print examples of this term's use to synthesize the conclusion that it does have widespread use, is that such an inference constitutes original research. Can you provide any sources that make this leap for you? Commentators who have mentioned how widespread the term has become? ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you are right in general. The use of the ability to read and count is not OR. Having seen a word used in a number of local newspapers, it immediately follows that it is used throughout the country. Normally, the context makes it clear what the meaning is. It is every bit as valid to see it used twice and conclude it's real, as to see the OED listing it, because they do just the same. To discuss the etymology, one needs a source--a dictionary uses specialists for that, and so that part is OR. Waiting for commentators is like expecting a town newspaper not just to have an article about the town high school, but to specifically discuss how notable it is.
However, in this case, OR is in my opinion needed to justify the material presented. fortunately there are ESPN and a newspaper. If they explain the use that's enough, so weak keep' DGG 03:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC):
    • Comment Fair enough, as you are correct in that it does fall under original research. That said (just for my edification), how do you justify a term such a netizen being in Wikipedia, as it is obviously 1. in widespread use via a Google search, 2. has an individual you can contribute the term to (per the Wikipedia entry), but 3. you have no definitive source saying it is in widespread use? 20.132.68.133 15:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 04:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - while the term is defined, and sources that use it can be found, no sources about the term as a neologism have been provided. Lyrl Talk C 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect to Mike and Mike in the Morning. Term was coined by Mike & Mike only a few years ago, meaning this would violate WP:NEO. I sincerely doubt that the term is coming into widespread use. It's more famous for the silly bets associated with the competition than the actual competition itself. Caknuck 18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mike and Mike in the Morning as a separate section. I don't think the fact of the terms recentism means it violates WP:NEO, but all of the references noted so far (and I was unable to find new ones) are rather trivial mentions. It can (and should) be trimmed down later. -- Black Falcon 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mike and Mike in the Morning per Black Falcon. Mike Christie (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Mike & Mike. I think NEO does apply, plus we can't have articles on every bit on a popular radio show or we could be generating 4 Mike & Mike and 5 Howard Stern articles per day. Plenty of room in the Mike & Mike article, so this is perfect for a merge.--Kubigula (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2007 (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.