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 Tim Tebow. In shortened form.  Sandstein  07:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tebowing[edit]

Tebowing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN neologism with purely local and temporary notoriety. Failed prod when sole author objected Toddst1 (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find no international sources though there is some mention on GNews archives in uncritical articles about Tim Tebow. There may be grounds to merge some of the information on his popularity with fans to that article. --Fæ (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found these: [1], [2], [3], [4] . 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You will note, these are all dated October 27th 2011 and all sources are USA specific, probably a slow news day. Please see WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS; if national newspapers are reporting it as an "internet phenomenon" in a week's time there may be an argument for impact on the historic record. --Fæ (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an excellent point. However, please note that I did not vote for a keep, I was simply pointing out the status of the availability of independent published sources. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Non Notable Neologism. Tebow is the flavor of the hour in the NFL. He didn't invent demonstrative public praying during NFL games (it has been around for decades) nor is that sort of exhibitionistic behavior regarded as "Tebowing" to a wide public. Urban Dictionary is thattaway ------> Carrite (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a sentence or three to Tim Tebow. I'm seeing a bunch of stuff about this meme right now in legitimate sports media. However, I agree that it may be transient, and I don't see the need for a separate article, especially since there is an obviously better place to put a few sentences of reliably sourced information about the meme/fad/whatever. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with suggestion of merging this into the Tim Tebow article proper. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Tim Tebow. Suitable for a paragraph/section in the bio; the fad has gotten a good bit of media attention (NYT; Wash Post & Wash Po again; AP; Guardian) but not enough to warrant its own article. Neutrality^talk 04:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not an internet craze. --Cox wasan (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: It most definitely is an internet craze. Articles from ESPN, [5], Fox Sports [6], Time [7], USA Today [8], and The Bleacher Report [9] all confirm this. It has received plenty of mainstream media coverage. I don't believe it merits its own article at this time, but the content should definitely be merged into the Tim Tebow article. Cyrus Andiron 14:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect - Stick it in that "In the media" section, but more than 2 sentences would give undue weight to this single storyline. I've started to see sources which move towards the threshold of notability per WP:NEO, but as that guideline suggests, it's still way too early for this article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2011 (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.