Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (2nd 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Directional Michigan

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

While the term is used in pop culture, it is not a "real" definition and IMO should not be included in Wikipedia. The article as it exists currently is made up of a synthesis of different sources. Most of the comments are sourced and true, but none of the statements in the article are directly related to "Directional Michigan", except those that mention Direction Michigan in various "poll". If the synthesized statements are removed, then all that remains is essentially: "Direction Michigan schools are bad at sports." Wikipedia is not a dictionary of pop culture/slang terms, which is what "Directional Michigan" is. Leave that to Urban Dictionary. X96lee15 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep last discussion was closed as "no consensus" on 6 October 2006. Now, approximately 3 1/2 years later there are many more reliable sources to support the notability of the term. Consider [Sports Illustrated], [Connecticut Post (pay article, sorry), [Southern Illinoisian, and even the lowly Beaver Country Times just for examples. A simple Google search yields about 9,480 pages for for +"espn" +"bottom 10". Clearly the trend has been toward the term becoming even more common and widespread. And because so many reliable sources (and heck for that matter "unreliable ones" as well) are using the term, it isn't really a "synthesis" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references to the term isn't synthesis, but the discussion about "staying competitive with non-BCS teams, but struggling against BCS teams", the entire third paragraph beginning "In recent years", the paragraph about Northern Michigan and the final paragraph about USC, UCF and USF are all synthesis. None of the references in those sections directly relate/reference "Directional Michigan".

If you remove all the areas I listed here, then all you have is a definition, albeit a sourced one, but that's all it is. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response then you should edit the article and not delete the article, particularly since your issues appear to apply to only part of the article and not the subject matter itself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have concerns about "File:Directional_michigan_50.png" used in the article too, particularly its fair use rationale (clearly the image cannot be obtained from "Directional Michigan"), its description (what is it exactly?) and its use in the article. But I'm not yet clear on how to notify problems with images (or, in fact, how to link to them without causing them to display). - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've requested deletion of that image. The fair-use claim is clearly inappropriate and makes false claims as to the nature of the image. cmadler (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct it should have its fair use claims modified. Of course, that has nothing to do with deletion of this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do beleive that image should be removed from Wikipedia, but that's a discussion to have there, not here; however, keep in mind that if the Directional Michigan article is deleted, the image will be deleted also, because it's a non-free image that would no longer be used in any articles. cmadler (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - agreed if the article is deleted, the image should also.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - X96lee15 makes a good point about synthesis sections of the article. Further, most of the "sources" are really just uses of the term. Show me something that has been written about "Directional Michigan", not just places where the term has been used, and I'll reconsider. cmadler (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Pretty much any of the ESPN.com bottom 10 rankings that include "directional michigan" in the rankings includes a section where the grouping is "written about". One example of many.
  - Well, that link you gave exactly makes my point. They used the term "Directional Michigan" to refer to the three schools, but they did not write anything about the term "Directional Michigan". cmadler (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Huh? "Toxic:" Western was clobbered by Ball State. Eastern lost to Div. I-AA Eastern Illinois. Central disappointed against bye." clearly explains the three schools that make up the term and how they relate to each other.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is an example of use of the term, not an explanation of the term. In this context, it's a primary source, which is pretty much all this article has. I acknowledge that people are using the term, but I don't see anything suggesting that people are writing about the term, which is what we need to have a secondary source. Without secondary sources, the article fails the notability guideline. cmadler (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Response Context is a valid method of establishing definition--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        But that's the issue. The article is merely a definition and why it should be deleted per WP:NOTDICT. No reliable sources have written anything of substance about "Directional Michigan". It's just a term / definition that has no Wikipedia / encyclopedic value. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, after cmadler removed the large portion of the article-check the history! There is an editor removing information from the article and at the same time taking a stance for deletion of the article. Nice trick.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm following your above suggestion about editing the article: marking OR and SYN in places where it seems possible that a source might be found, removing sections that clearly veer off topic. cmadler (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Cmadler is right; he did exactly what you recommended. The bottom line is "Directional Michigan" is a term that is used but there is no coverage ANYWHERE except to use the term as a definition. Because of that and WP:NOTDICT is why this article should be deleted. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Clarification I suggested editing the article to polish the content, not deleting 1/3 of its content and then saying "look, there's nothing in the article but a definition--let's delete it!"--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is sourced and critical for the completeness of the topic of college football (specifically DI-FBS). The article does not merely define the "slang" term, but shows the useage, creation, function and general education of the term. Reading the article as-is just before this writing, many of the scope creep parts of the article have been cleaned up. My preference would really to expand the article to be generally about Directional schools, since the article could be bigger and handle several cases at once. The problem is the article should thus be named "Directional ______" where the ____ would be Michigan, Florida, or otherwise as appropriate. Perhaps "Directional Schools" with the others all redirecting to it may be then appropriate. Nonetheless, the topic is important for full and complete information about the subject. That is, you cannot fully learn about college football (DI-FBS) without also learning about this topic and not having it would be an incomplete hole in the subject. MECU≈talk 17:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is linked from 4 other articles, and those links were all added by Paul McDonald within the last two days. Lack of incoming links suggests that this article is not only not critical for the completeness of the topic of college football, but that the article might be entirely unneeded. cmadler (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Lack of incoming links suggests that Wikipedia is far from complete. Who cares who added them and when they were added?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Useful and sourced for what it is. I would be interested to know the first published use of this term. Google news archive shows it used in Jan. 1989.[1], "Georgetown playing its usual collection of patsies and Michigan trouncing every directional Michigan in the book, from Western to Central to Eastern".--Milowent (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that this article is, or becomes, about the term "Directional Michigan", it belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. See WP:DICTIONARY. cmadler (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an atlas?--Milowent (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to a term like Mid-major or Mid-American Conference. There is nothing here that can support an encyclopedia article. At best, we have a dictionary definition with some sources that use the term. The concept is not covered in depth by any sources, the words are used. There is a BIG difference between a term being used and a term being discussed indepth in reliable sources. Where we have a Wikipedia article on a word or phrase, we need to demonstrate the latter condition. I don't see that here. The redirect to Mid-American Conference would actually probably work well, since the term may be a reasonable search term, and all three Directional Michigans are part of that conference. --Jayron32 14:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- question how is a redirect a worthwhile solution? There's 12 schools that make up that conference? If anything, a disambiguation page would make more sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirects like that are done all the time, for example, minor characters within a fictional work are often redirected to the work itself. Another possible redirect target might be Michigan MAC Trophy. cmadler (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, for re-directs to one subject matter. This would be a re-direct to three subject matters. How can a re-direct accomplish that and be less confusing instead of more confusing?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you really think this is three subject matters, you just acknowledged that it shouldn't be an article, it should be (and is) three articles: Eastern Michigan Eagles, Central Michigan Chippewas, and Western Michigan Broncos. To the extent the three have anything in common and exclusive of any other school, it involves their membership in the MAC, and so it would be appropriate to redirect to Mid-American Conference or Michigan MAC Trophy. In other words "Directional Michigan" is entirely within the MAC, so it's appropriate to redirect there. cmadler (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        By that rule, which path should we take--should we then redirect Sternum and Humerus and all 206 human bones to Human skeleton or the other way around? What about List of bones of the human skeleton? None, I say. The fact is simple--Wikipedia not only allows for but encourages such articles. I guess I would compromise to move the article to List of colleges that make up Directional Michigan but that seems pointless. I don't see it as three subject matters, I see it as one subject matter, of which there are three primary components yielding a total of four articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, provides context not merely definition, serves a purpose as a separate page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect to the three schools at minimum. I don't have a problem keeping the article in its current state, but it is a likely search term given its coverage. matt91486 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2010 (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.