Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewing Theory

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 Bill Simmons. I'm changing it to a redirect; the theory is already mentioned, but feel free to expand the coverage based on the revision history of this page. Mango juice^talk 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ewing Theory

non-notable theory in that it is not published anywhere but by Simmons himself. Most Google hits are to the Simmons article on the theory and is not in any independent publications. Article should be deleted or merged into Bill Simmons article Ramsquire 17:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bill Simmons. Caknuck 18:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge KazakhPol 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a well-known, published theory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note from WP:MEMES; in order for this article to be considered notable it must have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the meme itself, and which qualifies as a reliable source. Ramsquire 18:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:MEMES was rejected. I'm not the least bit compelled by it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was an oops on my part, I meant to post from that and WP:NN, which is the basis of the AfD. I simply cannot find any non-trivial independant publication of this theory. Ramsquire 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's fine, I'll provide references for its use later tonight in non-Simmons contexts later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable "theory" that is a neologism. I only find one non-blog reference to this outside of usage by Simmons himself.--Isotope23 19:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the first page of Google hits, I found two references in college newspapers. There is much debate over whether these are realible sources- I wouldn't necessarily consider UCalgary's paper a RS, but I certainly would consider this article from The Daily Princetonian to meet the criteria. Also from the first page (FYI, I use 30 G-hits per page) is a reference in a review in The Portland Mercury; that publication is certainly well-known, though I doubt it's "reliable." The second hit of the second page is also a college paper, this one being from Swarthmore. No matter what, there is certainly more than one non-blog reference. -- Kicking222 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I am also a Bill Simmons fan, but your post kind of proves why this should be merged into the Bill Simmons article. Every reference to this theory I've seen is connected to Simmons. There is no independent source on this topic. Ramsquire 20:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Disclosure: I'm a die-hard Bill Simmons fan, though when another article about one of his memes was at AfD, I argued for deletion.) 35,300 Google hits for "Ewing Theory", with 327 uniques out of the first 1,000. Cited in at least one reliable source, as I listed above. I think the phrase has become popular enough among college-aged adults and message board posters to gain status as a notable meme. Though he's been writing for ESPN for five years (and was a well-known blogger before his time at ESPN), the Ewing Theory (with a picture of Ewing) still occupies a place on his ESPN home page. I know this isn't the most convincing "keep" argument ever, and perhaps I'm slightly blinded by Simmons love, but I truly believe that this article deserves its place on WP. -- Kicking222 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable theory. Moreover, every people is constantly adding its own examples making this article very elusive. Eventually, I would prefer merge rather than keep. Poppypetty 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Following the precedent at the Reggie Cleveland All-Stars AfD, delete the page. The memes/Ewing theory section of the main Bill Simmons article can be expanded upon using information from the Ewing Theory article. SliceNYC 01:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge merge it into the Bill Simmons article Jeffklib 10:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bill Simmons, both for being a non-notable theory and being to closely tied to Simmons. I'm tempted to make this a Delete, if for no other reason than the "Ewing Theory" is a bad one. For every example of a team which succeeds after a star leaves, there are many more of a team which succeeds because of a star staying or arriving. Even the linked article demonstrates that: Simmons gives nine potential "Ewing Theory" candidates. As of 27 October 2006, only one of those examples fit the theory (the New England Patriots' success after the departure of Drew Bledsoe), and another arguably did (Pete Sampras's departure from men's tennis). The other seven don't. One, in fact (Kobe Bryant with the Los Angeles Lakers), demonstrates the exact opposite, as the departure of a superstar (Shaquille O'Neal) doomed the team to mediocrity. GDuke 16:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.