Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (3rd nomination)

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Directional Michigan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Directional Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has had two previous AFDs, where no-consensus was reached for both. It is not an encyclopedic term, which is a neologism and is not notable. The references given all talk about uses OF the term, not articles ABOUT the term. If you remove all the references from the article (which are just uses of the term), then all you have is an article that says, "Directional Michigan is made up of CMU, EMU and WMU". The rest of the article as it currently exists is a mixture of Wikipedia:original research and Wikipedia:synthesis. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be retained as a non-article -- and I'm not suggesting that it should be! -- I think a redirect to Michigan MAC Trophy might be better than a disambiguation. cmadler (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation cannot be used to circumvent WP:NEO. Per discussion at Wikiproject Disambiguation, decomposing a set of items in a group is not appropriate for a disambiguation page. We wouldn't have a disambiguation page saying "United States of America refers to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, ...". A disambiguation page identifies different topics that can be referred to by the same name, like multiple "Joe Smiths". —Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a non-encyclopedic term used to disparage CMU, EMU and WMU and their respective sports programs. Simply because the term exists, does not mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia, nor should it be included as a redirect or disambiguation page. It's kind of funny if you attended the University of Michigan or Michigan State, I suppose, not so much if you attended one of these so-called "directional" schools. By way of example, some southeastern college football fans still think it's cute to refer to the University of Florida as "FU" (get it? "f---, you!"), and you can find internet references to "FU." Does that mean that "FU" deserves its own Wikipedia article? Clearly not. If this article were a BLP, this would not even be a close call. Wikipedia is not a fan blog, and it should not provide a platform for the fans of one college sports program to mock the sports program and fans of other universities. Let's show some dignity, and DELETE this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response this isn't a bunch of fans coming up with something, although many fans do use the term. This is a term used by major sports media outlets. And I disagree that the term is used to disparge any schools or their sports programs. There is no mocking being done in this article and I think you are reading much, much more into it than is there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Paul Paul, as one of the Project's biggest proponents of articles about the mid-majors, FCS, Division II and Division III football subjects, I am really quite surprised that you would fight so hard to keep this crappy article. This term itself serves no purpose but to distinguish between UM, MSU (the so-called "name schools") and CMU, EMU and WMU (the so-called "directional schools"), and subordinate the latter universities and their sports programs to the former. As for the article, you can put lipstick on the pig and dress it up with neutral language and citations to a certain ESPN "bottom ten" column and the occasional SI reference, but sadly it will always be a pig. And, frankly, it is an embarrassingly ugly pig to have in our front yard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't like it check. Got it. I figured that out. That's not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asked and answered the reasons to keep are simple: it is a notable term, widely used among various sports media outlets nationally, regionally, and locally. In virtually every article that uses the term, it defines the term in the context of the article. The term has been used for many years and is not just a "catch-phrase-of-the-month" and has been adopted by sportswriters and fans alike.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking for another word that has also been used for many years, has been adopted by many, isn't a catch-phrase, but the article is just a soft redirect to Wiktionary. There are better examples, but that was that best I could think of off the top of my head. Nolelover It's almost football season! 21:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Nolelover Greetings, NL. I haven't bumped into you before on the Project, and I assume that your comments are intended in good faith. Let's look at another example closer to your heart: "Free Shoes University." The term was certainly intended to disparage the FSU program, but it was more than just a smart-ass comment—it was an actual tempest in a teapot scandal in Tallahassee with a real history for which a rival coach provided a name. It was a very real and still notable event. There will literally be hundreds of reliable references to the term on the internet and Google News Archive, many of them with an explanation of the underlying scandal and the involved parties and the NCAA sanctions that followed (far better articles than any cited so far for "Directional Michigan"). Do we, as WikiProject College Football, really want to encourage the creation of such articles? In addition to the arguments based WP:SYN, WP:NOTDIC, and WP:NEO, I am also making a plea for the dignity and neutrality of WP College Football. Every university and its sports program deserves to be treated with respect, and not have neutral-sounding articles written about its various nicknames. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up Comment to NL FYI, I just discovered that some smart-ass created a "Free Shoes University" redirect to the main FSU article in 2006. If you file an AfD for the redirect, I will gladly support it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I know the whole "Free Shoes" scandal story, and I understand your point. Here's the thing; I do support a Free Shoes redirect to FSU. A redirect going to the article on the actual scandal would be better, but I'm sure there is some clueless individual who will hear and search that term. I think the same way about this article *Note that i !voted redirect before delete*. Obviously, I live in the southeast where it isn't used, but from what I saw, it isn't really a derogative term. TBH, I've noticed the western-central-eastern connection, and I wouldn't think it puts them down to group them by the name of their respective universities. If you find anything using this term explaining that this term is used as a put-down....well, come to think of it, that would probably be enough to save the article in my mind :). Nolelover It's almost football season! 22:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —X96lee15 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —X96lee15 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a term in wide use by sportswriters as illustrated by the article's references to numerous reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, ESPN, NBC, and several newspapers), and not merely opposing fans (as may be the case for tu for Texas, etc.). I also think the article goes beyond a dictionary definition. The article's treatment of the subject also appears to me as neutral and straightforward. Strikehold (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEO, "articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The sources found for this article simply use the term and do not explain its origins or significance of the term. Also, while ESPN is frequently cited as a source for usage of the term, WP:GNG expects multiple sources to establish notability. However, ESPN should be treated as a single source, as WP:GNG says "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." In any event, ESPN only uses the term and does not talk about the term. Per WP:NOTNEO suggestion, this should be added to Wiktionary unless multiple sources about the term are identified. —Bagumba (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary —Bagumba (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Response to Jayron Jayron, from my reading of the various "sources," the term also applies to Northern Michigan, too (not a MAC member). If we are going to do anything with this article other than delete it, I would suggest that we do a 4-way disambiguation page to CMU, EMU, WMU and NMU's sports program pages or the athletics section within the main university articles, whichever is applicable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd say that a lot of the material on here reads like a dictionary, but the term itself is worth keeping. Expanding mostly on the history of the term, but keep it as a WP:STUB.
Homo Logica (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If sources about the term were identified to establish notability of this neologism, it would be acceptable to leave this article to develop. However, only sources that use the term have been found, so it does not look promising that this article would ever be able to be expanded. WP:NEO says "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." —Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, if you had possession of not-online (or paywall-ed) Michigan newspaper articles or columns which discuss the term, would you share them with us? You michigan people (wherever you went to college) have been warring over this article for FIVE years!--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly ask that editors WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:AGF —Bagumba (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of brash. Is there a reason for that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Having dug into the history of discussions a little bit, its quite obvious to me that there are some people who are biased in favor of keeping this article and those biased in favor of deletion based on their various school allegiances. Its really ridiculous. Thus we see below the hope that continued nominations of the article will eventually lead to deletion--this is a misuse of AfD. The fact is that the term has been used in the press frequently over the past 20 years, and if it was a more innocuous term, no one would care about trying to delete the article. Instead, people want to battle over whether the press coverage is significant enough/weighty enough/whatever--which is ultimately subjective and leads to these no consensus outcomes. At a different level, the same exact thing has gone on with the Santorum (neologism), for years.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent: I'm not sure why you directed your comment at me. I have not participated in previous AfDs on this subject. Also, I see no evidence to your charge that any editor here is intentionally withholding "paywall-ed" information to advance a position. Again, assume good faith. Also, all editors have their own inherent biases, but collectively, it balances out. —Bagumba (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is obviously here just to define the term, and list where it's used, but that's not what encyclopedias do. An encyclopedia article would be all about those three college's sports teams, but actually they don't have much in common so there's nothing to write. And so you're left with just defining the term and saying how and where you use it, but that is what dictionaries are for. An encyclopedia article has to go significantly beyond being just about the term.Rememberway (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - echoing my comments from the last AfD; the volume of coverage indicates that it is a notable concept, however, if deletion ends up a consensus, the page should be used as a disambiguation page. matt91486 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without providing further explanation on your prior comments, referring to the "volume of coverage" seems like a plea to not WP:LOSE work done on this article regardless of its notability, or to keep it based merely on the number of WP:GOOGLEHITS without considering the content of those sources. However, much can be salvaged by tranwikiing to a more appropriate site, Wiktionary. —Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary, that might be a good solution. cmadler (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that this would pass Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion. bd2412 T 20:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Turning it into a disamb page would seem to be compatible with the Wikipedia's policies, it's still a delete though, the article is gone, disambiguations aren't articles, so you could immediately create it after the *A*FD if you wished.Rememberway (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there something else called "Directional Michigan" that this usage is ambiguous with? A film or an album, perhaps? If not, then there is nothing to disambiguate. Disambiguation pages serve to distinguish between different things having the same name. Anything else is an abuse of the disambiguation tag. bd2412 T 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neo.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing has changed since the previous AFDs. We're just here again, despite having any new evidence from the previous AFDs because someone else came along and had a problem with it. There are no new arguments or reasons presented than the previous AFDs, and therefore we will likely have the same result. I can only hope that someone, before nominating for a 4th AFD, actually take the time and read the rules for AFDs, the previous AFDs, and decide that they shouldn't bother unless that have some significant new reason. MECU≈talk 22:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Really? Nothing has changed? By my count, the tally stands 10 votes for Delete, 6 votes for Keep, and 2 votes for converting the article to disambiguation which become votes for Deleting the article if the tally does not constitute a consensus for Keeping. By my reckoning, sir, that's dangerously close to a consensus for DELETE. 173.168.183.102 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer Look at least 4 (if not more, depending on interpretation) of the "delete" !votes are for invalid deletion reasons, variations of "unencyclopedic" and the age-old "I don't like it" -- So that leaves at most 6 with a delete position and 6 with a keep position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a vote Paul, it's a discussion. Further, I could argue that all 6 of the keep !votes are for "invalid" reasons, as most of them do not state any policies as backing. Some keep !votes merely state "per last AfD." Regardless of how either of us construe the consensus of this AfD, it doesn't matter. It's up to the closing admin to decide. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) How about that it fails WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:GNG? Furthermore, the first two AfDs were closed as "no consensus" so you can't say another discussion wouldn't be helpful. It's not like one or both of the previous AfDs had real consensus, otherwise this probably wouldn't be here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you keep listing an article you can eventually get it deleted, yes. No way this fails WP:GNG, too many references in widely-distributed publications. No way this fails WP:NOTDICTIONAY because simply put, it isn't a dictinary definition. And no way it fails WP:NEO because the term is defined in the context of multiple articles cited. History and origin could be added and over time they likely will when adequate research is completed--but there is a history, it is verifiable, and it is widely notable as an abundance of sources show. Further, Mecu is correct in that there have been no new arguments brought up in favor of deletion. There are at this moment more people making that same argument, but AFDs are not about popular vote.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By avoiding my request to link to an article that proves the term meets WP:GNG, you acknowledge that it does not pass it. If there are more than enough references which prove the term meets GNG as you say, you should be able to show me here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 is not really a ref in that it just links to the MAC website. Refs 2-12 are trivial mentions that do not talk about the term, ref 13 is a dead link, ref 14 is a trivial mention that does not talk about the term, ref 15 is a dead link, refs 16-17 are trivial mentions that do not talk about the term, ref 18 is a link to the GLIAC website, and ref 19 is another trivial mention that does not talk about the term.
  • To recap, we have 15 references that only use the term but do not talk about it, two links to conference websites, and two dead links. Again, none of these references are sufficient enough for the term to pass GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:48, 30 May 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.