233:
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.
194:. 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.
232:
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
388:
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
130:
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.
264:
being in
Knowledge, as it is obviously 1. in widespread use via a Google search, 2. has an individual you can contribute the term to (per the Knowledge entry), but 3. you have no definitive source saying it is in widespread use?
206:
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
238:
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
333:. 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.
123:
148:- 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.
353:, 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. --
260:
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
178:
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
96:
91:
100:
187:
183:
83:
211:. Can you provide any sources that make this leap for you? Commentators who have mentioned how widespread the term has become? ≈≈
17:
179:
366:
346:
326:
49:
313:
157:
417:
36:
402:
380:
357:
337:
317:
293:
269:
247:
221:
198:
169:
135:
65:
416:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
150:
87:
377:
266:
132:
195:
175:
218:
59:
396:
374:
287:
79:
71:
370:
354:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
304:- while the term is defined, and sources that use it can be found, no sources about the term
349:
as a separate section. I don't think the fact of the terms recentism means it violates
213:
165:
54:
329:. Term was coined by Mike & Mike only a few years ago, meaning this would violate
191:
391:
350:
330:
145:
334:
208:
117:
280:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
309:
243:
261:
410:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
174:
I think the term is coming into widespread use, and a simple
113:
109:
105:
285:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
420:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
367:Mike and Mike in the Morning
347:Mike and Mike in the Morning
327:Mike and Mike in the Morning
50:Mike and Mike in the Morning
437:
403:22:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
381:13:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
358:23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
338:18:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
318:00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
294:04:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
270:15:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
248:03:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
222:05:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
199:21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
188:Nuences County Record Star
170:11:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
136:09:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
66:22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
413:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
323:Merge & redirect
308:have been provided.
80:Sheet of Integrity
72:Sheet of Integrity
296:
209:original research
184:Dayton Daily News
167:
428:
415:
401:
290:
284:
281:
168:
164:
162:
155:
121:
103:
64:
34:
436:
435:
431:
430:
429:
427:
426:
425:
424:
418:deletion review
411:
390:
316:
288:
279:
180:Ottumwa Courier
158:
151:
149:
94:
78:
75:
53:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
434:
432:
423:
422:
406:
405:
383:
360:
340:
320:
312:
306:as a neologism
298:
297:
283:
275:
274:
273:
272:
252:
251:
236:
235:
234:
227:
226:
225:
224:
172:
128:
127:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
433:
421:
419:
414:
408:
407:
404:
400:
398:
393:
387:
384:
382:
379:
376:
375:Mike Christie
372:
368:
364:
361:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
341:
339:
336:
332:
328:
324:
321:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:
299:
295:
292:
291:
289:Daniel Bryant
282:
277:
276:
271:
268:
267:20.132.68.133
263:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
246:
245:
241:
237:
231:
230:
229:
228:
223:
220:
216:
215:
210:
205:
202:
201:
200:
197:
193:
192:Roanoke Times
189:
185:
181:
177:
176:Google search
173:
171:
166:
163:
161:
156:
154:
147:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
62:
58:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
412:
409:
394:
385:
371:Black Falcon
362:
355:Black Falcon
342:
322:
305:
301:
286:
278:
257:
242:
239:
212:
203:
159:
152:
141:
129:
60:
55:
45:
43:
31:
28:
142:Weak Delete
240:weak keep'
190:, and the
133:YechielMan
214:Carolfrog
196:Robologna
392:Kubigula
389:merge.--
124:View log
335:Caknuck
262:netizen
258:Comment
204:Comment
97:protect
92:history
378:(talk)
351:WP:NEO
331:WP:NEO
302:Delete
186:, the
182:, the
146:WP:NEO
101:delete
61:scribe
386:Merge
363:Merge
343:Merge
219:♦тос♦
118:views
110:watch
106:links
46:merge
16:<
397:talk
369:per
310:Lyrl
144:per
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
373:.
365:to
345:to
325:to
244:DGG
160:ton
153:Wal
122:– (
56:WjB
48:to
217:≈≈
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
52:.
399:)
395:(
314:C
250::
126:)
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.