317:- 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 Knowledge (XXG) article? Clearly not. If this article were a BLP, this would not even be a close call. Knowledge (XXG) 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.
567:
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
1390:
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
365:
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.
738:- 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.
298:, 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". —
1829:"No consensus" does not mean that there was consensus for the article to be kept in either AfD discussion, so until there is a consensus for either "keep" or "delete," there will continue to be AfDs. If the term "Directional Michigan" passes GNG, please show me an article in which the term is not just used, but
1567:
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
622:
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
1657:
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
1630:
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
771:
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
1933:
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
1389:
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
1264:
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
1196:
is needed to extract the content." However, not one of the sources actually tells the reader what the term "Directional
Michigan" means and therefore most, if not all, of the article's content is original research. The bulk of the article also explains where exactly the term has been used, which is
853:
The ESPN "mentions" are part of a column which pretty much exists to make fun of the teams with the worst records in college football and shouldn't be taken seriously in the least. Some of the links are dead and some of them just describe "Team A travels close to home to take on Team B". I've never
211:
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
1698:
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
1408:
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
364:
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
334:
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
428:
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
566:
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
1806:
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,
1448:, 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.
490:
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.
1157:. The only reason I say redirect first is because it is a valid search term, and the Trophy makes the most sense. Otherwise, "wide use by sportswriters", "additional by fans...", and even deleting it being silly are not valid reasons to keep. I'm not sure
1863:
We obviosly disagree on this point. I believe that this requirement is more than met in the references already in the article and you do not, and neither of us stands alone on this point of contention. Hence, the "no consensus" status on the last two
1338:
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
1679:
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
1882:
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.
579:, 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.
1552:
Turning it into a disamb page would seem to be compatible with the
Knowledge (XXG)'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
1769:? 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.
86:
81:
180:
1039:
Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and
1019:
ESPN, Sports
Illustrated, and many other media outlets use the term and define it in the context of the given article. Many occasions the programs are lumped together as "Directional Michigan" in the media.--
1631:
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.
767:
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,
1465:- 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.
662:
854:
heard this term at all and the term sounds...I would say too 'intelligent' to be taken seriously as a rivalry name as it sounds like something come up more by a math geek than actual fans.
1188:. Looking through all 19 references (two of which are links to conference websites, another two are dead links), I found that not one of them discusses the term, instead just uses it. Per
1042:
Usage, and even briefly defining it for the sake of the article (e.g. "The directional Michigan schools, Eastern and Central, went head-to-head today...") does not equate to notability.
212:
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
627:
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
600:
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.
76:
1811:
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.--
1107:
per my comments at the last AfD. I hadn't heard of the term before then, but was surprised to learn how widespread its use can be found. I just don't see how the project is
174:
759:, "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
685:
141:
1969:
I fully agree with Eagles here. I had looked through all the sources, and not one of them discusses the term itself, an obviously necessity to pass GNG, or even NOTDIC.
794:
295:
1316:
the term were identified to establish notability of this neologism, it would be acceptable to leave this article to develop. However, only sources that
1915:
I have not avoided your request and I do not make such an acknowledgement. There are nineteen different references on the article page. Start there.--
1444:
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
114:
109:
1324:
says "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." —
883:
I don't think that it's a negative term, but if it were that would not preclude it from inclusion. Notability can arise from negative coverage.--
118:
631:
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 :).
1937:
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,
1410:
1659:
101:
957:
Not just a term used by ESPN but by many other networks and additionally used by fans. Article is well sourced, references are provided. "
2007:
1981:
1960:
1924:
1903:
1873:
1853:
1820:
1789:
1737:
1719:
1689:
1667:
1645:
1622:
1598:
1562:
1518:
1504:
1474:
1457:
1422:
1403:
1384:
1370:
1348:
1333:
1307:
1274:
1252:
1217:
1173:
1120:
1089:
1068:
1054:
1028:
1014:
988:
974:
947:
933:
917:
892:
878:
843:
826:
806:
785:
747:
728:
700:
677:
643:
609:
588:
544:
503:
481:
463:
438:
416:
391:
374:
344:
326:
307:
283:
260:
229:
59:
979:
Article is sourced just with uses of the term, not sources about the term. I think that's the most important distinction in this AFD. —
817:
Doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content. Usage of a term is dictionary territory. Article doesn't go beyond that, and never could.
713:
Show me something that has been written about "Directional Michigan", not just places where the term has been used, and I'll reconsider.
17:
1578:
1533:
253:
1193:
195:
1077:. They don't define it for its own sake, but simply to explain to readers who might not know what it means. Usage /=/ notability.
532:
Exactly what I was about to say. I don't think the term (and granted, I've never used it before) is meant in a derogative sense.
162:
1955:
1898:
1848:
1784:
1714:
1212:
912:
1483:
Without providing further explanation on your prior comments, referring to the "volume of coverage" seems like a plea to not
1491:
without considering the content of those sources. However, much can be salvaged by tranwikiing to a more appropriate site,
213:
1569:
1524:
2028:
1290:
like a dictionary, but the term itself is worth keeping. Expanding mostly on the history of the term, but keep it as a
36:
1145:-- I looked through all the sources (and did a bit of research on my own), and, like the nom said, could find nothing
156:
1934:
term, ref 18 is a link to the GLIAC website, and ref 19 is another trivial mention that does not talk about the term.
962:
831:
404:
source that doesn't just use this term, but actually discusses its history/origin/etc., I'll gladly switch to keep.
1995:
1799:
1762:
1154:
447:
See below post. I realize its not just a "catch-phrase", which is why I don't really think WP:NEO applies. Still,
152:
1859:
1229:. Transwikify to Wiktionary if not already done, but conceptually there's not enough here to build an adequate
2027:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1663:
105:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
958:
270:
this is to be retained as a non-article -- and I'm not suggesting that it should be! -- I think a redirect to
1320:
the term have been found, so it does not look promising that this article would ever be able to be expanded.
1234:
202:
1488:
1920:
1869:
1816:
1733:
1685:
1380:
1064:
1024:
970:
943:
888:
839:
477:
434:
387:
340:
97:
65:
217:
1558:
1453:
1303:
1270:
822:
605:
584:
370:
322:
246:
1354:
1586:
As I see it, there are three things that could be distinguished here: the names of the three schools.
1487:
work done on this article regardless of its notability, or to keep it based merely on the number of
1391:
1141:
Upon further thought, I think that making this page a disambiguation page would work best, otherwise
743:
1002:
1977:
1949:
1892:
1842:
1778:
1708:
1594:
1470:
1206:
1169:
1137:
1085:
1050:
906:
869:
639:
618:
Heh, I know the whole "Free Shoes" scandal story, and I understand your point. Here's the thing; I
540:
499:
459:
412:
271:
188:
1226:
1038:
756:
716:
572:
168:
1752:
1618:
1245:
1127:
984:
696:
673:
225:
2003:
1916:
1865:
1812:
1729:
1681:
1514:
1500:
1418:
1376:
1366:
1329:
1060:
1059:
And in most every use of the term, they also define its usage in the context of the article.--
1020:
1010:
966:
939:
884:
835:
802:
781:
724:
473:
430:
383:
336:
303:
279:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1484:
1291:
1554:
1449:
1299:
1266:
818:
601:
580:
366:
318:
239:
1830:
1803:
1795:
1766:
1758:
1358:
1321:
1189:
1185:
1158:
768:
576:
568:
291:
1794:
If you keep listing an article you can eventually get it deleted, yes. No way this fails
930:
739:
1970:
1942:
1885:
1835:
1771:
1701:
1641:
1587:
1466:
1199:
1162:
1078:
1043:
899:
857:
632:
533:
492:
452:
405:
55:
994:
1611:
1396:
1341:
1238:
1113:
980:
692:
669:
221:
1728:
of course this is not a vote. I wasn't the one who brought up counting the votes.--
772:
and does not talk about the term. Per WP:NOTNEO suggestion, this should be added to
1999:
1510:
1496:
1414:
1362:
1325:
1006:
798:
777:
720:
448:
429:"catch-phrase-of-the-month" and has been adopted by sportswriters and fans alike.--
299:
275:
1998:
encourages discussion of the specific content of sources over just listing them. —
135:
1265:
athletics section within the main university articles, whichever is applicable.
1509:
If this is suitable for inclusion in Wiktionary, that might be a good solution.
1492:
773:
1798:, too many references in widely-distributed publications. No way this fails
1001:—whether readers can check that material in Knowledge (XXG) has already been
715:
All we have are uses of the term, which might be fine in a dictionary -- but
1632:
451:
has also been used by many years by even more people - look at the article.
50:
1802:
because simply put, it isn't a dictinary definition. And no way it fails
1523:
I don't believe that this would pass Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion.
1111:
by deletion of this. Is it a bit silly? Yes. But 90% of life is silly.--
1939:
none of these references are sufficient enough for the term to pass GNG.
623:
southeast where it isn't used, but from what I saw, it isn't really a
382:
check. Got it. I figured that out. That's not a reason to delete.--
1233:
entry. As an alternate idea, one could redirect or merge this to
1192:, the sources need to "address the subject directly in detail, so
2021:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
897:
Except that you would have to use the term "coverage" loosely.
87:
Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (3rd nomination)
82:
Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan (2nd nomination)
795:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary
776:
unless multiple sources about the term are identified. —
131:
127:
123:
663:
list of American football-related deletion discussions
187:
1161:
applies, but I do think this could go to Wiktionary.
997:, "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is
1375:
That's kind of brash. Is there a reason for that?--
201:
400:But what reason is there to keep? If you can find
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2031:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1831:"sources address the subject directly in detail"
1699:matter. It's up to the closing admin to decide.
335:reading much, much more into it than is there.--
763:the term or concept, not books and papers that
472:Sorry, I have no clue what you mean here...?--
1286:- I'd say that a lot of the material on here
938:"Silliness" is not a valid argument either.--
686:list of Michigan-related deletion discussions
8:
1446:all about those three college's sports teams
684:Note: This debate has been included in the
661:Note: This debate has been included in the
290:Disambiguation cannot be used to circumvent
1005:, not whether editors think it is true." —
683:
660:
77:Articles for deletion/Directional Michigan
1237:if there's anything worth preserving. --
296:discussion at Wikiproject Disambiguation
793:Note: This debate has been included in
274:might be better than a disambiguation.
74:
1413:, but collectively, it balances out. —
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
993:Usage by fans is not relevant. Per
717:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary
72:
1658:close to a consensus for DELETE.
711:- As I wrote in the previous AfD,
24:
214:Knowledge (XXG):original research
1073:Exactly - they define its usage
1411:have their own inherent biases
1003:published by a reliable source
1:
1075:in the context of the article
965:" are not reason to delete.--
2048:
1353:I kindly ask that editors
1913:Again, asked and answered
1583:20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1182:per X96lee15's reasoning.
834:is not a valid argument--
236:Convert to disambiguation
218:Knowledge (XXG):synthesis
2024:Please do not modify it.
2008:19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1982:18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1961:18:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1925:18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1904:02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1874:01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1854:05:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
1821:05:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
1790:23:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
1757:How about that it fails
1738:00:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
1720:19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1690:19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1668:23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
1646:22:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
1623:18:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1599:23:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
1563:17:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1538:20:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1519:17:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1505:17:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1475:16:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1458:00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1423:21:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1404:12:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1385:12:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
1371:20:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1349:19:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1334:00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1308:23:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
1275:23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
1253:23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
1218:19:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
1174:20:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
1149:the term, and only uses
1121:20:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
1090:14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
1069:12:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
1055:14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
1029:21:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
1015:20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
999:verifiability, not truth
989:20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
975:20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
948:18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
934:19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
918:18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
893:18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
879:00:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
844:18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
827:22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
807:22:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
786:21:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
748:21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
729:20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
701:19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
678:19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
644:22:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
610:22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
589:21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
545:20:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
504:21:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
482:21:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
464:14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
439:12:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
417:14:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
392:13:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
375:21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
345:20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
327:19:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
308:20:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
284:20:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
261:19:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
230:18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
60:07:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1235:Mid-American Conference
598:Follow-up Comment to NL
71:AfDs for this article:
1392:Santorum (neologism)
1194:no original research
1153:it. This is classic
98:Directional Michigan
66:Directional Michigan
1628:Nothing has changed
1138:Michigan MAC Trophy
1033:That's right, they
963:just unencyclopedic
272:Michigan MAC Trophy
1993:Content of sources
1262:Response to Jayron
1184:as the term fails
564:Reply to Nolelover
426:Asked and answered
44:The result was
1756:
1644:
1402:
1347:
1131:
1119:
876:
832:WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC
809:
703:
689:
680:
666:
380:You don't like it
2039:
2026:
1996:WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
1974:
1958:
1952:
1945:
1901:
1895:
1888:
1851:
1845:
1838:
1787:
1781:
1774:
1763:WP:NOTDICTIONARY
1750:
1717:
1711:
1704:
1640:
1637:
1616:
1591:
1576:
1531:
1401:
1346:
1248:
1241:
1215:
1209:
1202:
1166:
1155:WP:NOTDICTIONARY
1125:
1118:
1082:
1047:
915:
909:
902:
877:
872:
866:
865:
860:
792:
690:
667:
636:
537:
496:
456:
409:
258:
251:
244:
206:
205:
191:
139:
121:
34:
2047:
2046:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2029:deletion review
2022:
1972:
1956:
1950:
1943:
1899:
1893:
1886:
1860:WP:WABBITSEASON
1849:
1843:
1836:
1809:Mecu is correct
1800:WP:NOTDICTIONAY
1785:
1779:
1772:
1715:
1709:
1702:
1660:173.168.183.102
1633:
1612:
1589:
1570:
1525:
1246:
1239:
1213:
1207:
1200:
1164:
1080:
1045:
959:I don't like it
913:
907:
900:
870:
863:
858:
855:
634:
629:using this term
535:
494:
454:
407:
254:
247:
240:
148:
112:
96:
93:
91:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2045:
2043:
2034:
2033:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1964:
1963:
1935:
1928:
1927:
1907:
1906:
1877:
1876:
1856:
1824:
1823:
1792:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1723:
1722:
1693:
1692:
1671:
1670:
1649:
1648:
1625:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1478:
1477:
1460:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1394:, for years.--
1296:
1295:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1256:
1255:
1220:
1176:
1123:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
991:
952:
951:
950:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
848:
847:
846:
811:
810:
789:
788:
750:
732:
731:
705:
704:
681:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
613:
612:
592:
591:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
485:
484:
467:
466:
442:
441:
420:
419:
395:
394:
377:
350:
349:
348:
347:
311:
310:
287:
286:
264:
263:
238:. 'Nuff said.
209:
208:
145:
92:
90:
89:
84:
79:
73:
70:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2044:
2032:
2030:
2025:
2019:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1994:
1991:
1990:
1983:
1980:
1979:
1976:
1975:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1962:
1959:
1954:
1953:
1947:
1946:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1917:Paul McDonald
1914:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1905:
1902:
1897:
1896:
1890:
1889:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1866:Paul McDonald
1862:
1861:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1847:
1846:
1840:
1839:
1832:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1813:Paul McDonald
1810:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1783:
1782:
1776:
1775:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1754:
1753:edit conflict
1749:
1748:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1730:Paul McDonald
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1721:
1718:
1713:
1712:
1706:
1705:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1682:Paul McDonald
1678:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1656:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1643:
1638:
1636:
1629:
1626:
1624:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1609:
1606:
1600:
1597:
1596:
1593:
1592:
1585:
1584:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1575:
1574:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1537:
1536:
1532:
1530:
1529:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1489:WP:GOOGLEHITS
1486:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1461:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1440:
1439:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1399:
1398:
1393:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1377:Paul McDonald
1374:
1373:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1344:
1343:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1242:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1216:
1211:
1210:
1204:
1203:
1197:not notable.
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1129:
1128:edit conflict
1124:
1122:
1116:
1115:
1110:
1106:
1103:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:Paul McDonald
1058:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:Paul McDonald
1018:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
990:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
967:Paul McDonald
964:
960:
956:
953:
949:
945:
941:
940:Paul McDonald
937:
936:
935:
932:
928:
925:
919:
916:
911:
910:
904:
903:
896:
895:
894:
890:
886:
885:Paul McDonald
882:
881:
880:
875:
873:
862:
861:
852:
849:
845:
841:
837:
836:Paul McDonald
833:
830:
829:
828:
824:
820:
816:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
791:
790:
787:
783:
779:
775:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
733:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
707:
706:
702:
698:
694:
687:
682:
679:
675:
671:
664:
659:
645:
642:
641:
638:
637:
630:
626:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
607:
603:
599:
596:
595:
594:
593:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
565:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
546:
543:
542:
539:
538:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
505:
502:
501:
498:
497:
489:
488:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
474:Paul McDonald
471:
470:
469:
468:
465:
462:
461:
458:
457:
450:
446:
445:
444:
443:
440:
436:
432:
431:Paul McDonald
427:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
415:
414:
411:
410:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
389:
385:
384:Paul McDonald
381:
378:
376:
372:
368:
363:
362:Reply to Paul
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
346:
342:
338:
337:Paul McDonald
333:
330:
329:
328:
324:
320:
316:
313:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
265:
262:
259:
257:
252:
250:
245:
243:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
204:
200:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:Find sources:
146:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2023:
2020:
1992:
1978:
1971:
1948:
1941:
1938:
1912:
1891:
1884:
1858:
1841:
1834:
1808:
1777:
1770:
1707:
1700:
1676:
1654:
1634:
1627:
1613:
1607:
1595:
1588:
1579:
1572:
1571:
1549:
1534:
1527:
1526:
1462:
1445:
1441:
1395:
1340:
1317:
1313:
1287:
1283:
1261:
1244:
1243:
1231:encyclopedia
1230:
1225:Basically a
1222:
1205:
1198:
1181:
1178:
1170:
1163:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1133:
1132:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1086:
1079:
1074:
1051:
1044:
1034:
998:
954:
926:
905:
898:
867:
856:
850:
814:
764:
760:
752:
735:
712:
708:
640:
633:
628:
624:
619:
597:
563:
541:
534:
500:
493:
460:
453:
425:
413:
406:
401:
379:
361:
331:
314:
267:
255:
248:
241:
235:
210:
198:
192:
184:
177:
171:
165:
159:
149:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1680:position.--
1677:Closer Look
1555:Rememberway
1450:Rememberway
1355:WP:AVOIDYOU
1312:If sources
1300:Homo Logica
1267:Dirtlawyer1
929:silliness.
819:Rememberway
602:Dirtlawyer1
581:Dirtlawyer1
449:Fo' shizzle
367:Dirtlawyer1
319:Dirtlawyer1
175:free images
1614:ArcAngel
1610:as a neo.
1493:Wiktionary
1037:the term.
931:Neutrality
774:Wiktionary
740:Strikehold
625:derogative
1973:Nolelover
1590:Nolelover
1467:matt91486
1227:WP:DICDEF
1165:Nolelover
1081:Nolelover
1046:Nolelover
757:WP:NOTNEO
635:Nolelover
573:WP:NOTDIC
536:Nolelover
495:Nolelover
455:Nolelover
408:Nolelover
1397:Milowent
1342:Milowent
1339:years!--
1134:Redirect
1114:Milowent
1109:improved
1040:history.
981:X96lee15
693:X96lee15
670:X96lee15
332:Response
222:X96lee15
142:View log
2000:Bagumba
1864:AFDs.--
1655:Comment
1553:wished.
1550:Comment
1511:cmadler
1497:Bagumba
1485:WP:LOSE
1442:Comment
1415:Bagumba
1363:Bagumba
1326:Bagumba
1292:WP:STUB
1007:Bagumba
961:" and "
871:chatter
799:Bagumba
778:Bagumba
721:cmadler
300:Bagumba
276:cmadler
181:WP refs
169:scholar
115:protect
110:history
1944:Eagles
1887:Eagles
1837:Eagles
1804:WP:NEO
1796:WP:GNG
1773:Eagles
1767:WP:GNG
1759:WP:NEO
1703:Eagles
1619:(talk)
1608:Delete
1573:bd2412
1528:bd2412
1359:WP:AGF
1322:WP:NEO
1240:Jayron
1223:Delete
1201:Eagles
1190:WP:GNG
1186:WP:GNG
1179:Delete
1159:WP:NEO
1143:delete
927:Delete
901:Eagles
851:Delete
815:Delete
769:WP:GNG
753:Delete
709:Delete
577:WP:NEO
575:, and
569:WP:SYN
315:Delete
294:. Per
292:WP:NEO
153:Google
119:delete
46:delete
1568:tag.
1314:about
1288:reads
1147:about
761:about
249:Fault
196:JSTOR
157:books
136:views
128:watch
124:links
48:. --
16:<
2004:talk
1951:24/7
1921:talk
1894:24/7
1870:talk
1844:24/7
1817:talk
1780:24/7
1765:and
1734:talk
1710:24/7
1686:talk
1664:talk
1642:talk
1635:MECU
1559:talk
1515:talk
1501:talk
1471:talk
1463:Keep
1454:talk
1419:talk
1381:talk
1367:talk
1357:and
1330:talk
1304:talk
1284:Keep
1271:talk
1208:24/7
1105:Keep
1065:talk
1025:talk
1011:talk
995:WP:V
985:talk
971:talk
955:Keep
944:talk
908:24/7
889:talk
859:Nate
840:talk
823:talk
803:talk
782:talk
755:Per
744:talk
736:Keep
725:talk
697:talk
674:talk
606:talk
585:talk
478:talk
435:talk
388:talk
371:talk
341:talk
323:talk
304:talk
280:talk
256:Ryan
226:talk
220:. —
216:and
189:FENS
163:news
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
1957:(C)
1900:(C)
1850:(C)
1786:(C)
1716:(C)
1495:. —
1318:use
1214:(C)
1136:to
1035:use
914:(C)
765:use
402:one
203:TWL
140:– (
2006:)
1923:)
1872:)
1833:.
1819:)
1761:,
1736:)
1688:)
1666:)
1621:)
1561:)
1517:)
1503:)
1473:)
1456:)
1421:)
1400:•
1383:)
1369:)
1345:•
1332:)
1306:)
1273:)
1247:32
1151:of
1117:•
1067:)
1027:)
1013:)
987:)
973:)
946:)
891:)
842:)
825:)
805:)
784:)
746:)
727:)
719:.
699:)
688:.
676:)
665:.
620:do
608:)
587:)
571:,
480:)
437:)
390:)
373:)
343:)
325:)
306:)
282:)
268:If
242:De
228:)
183:)
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
58:)
2002:(
1919:(
1868:(
1815:(
1755:)
1751:(
1732:(
1684:(
1662:(
1639:≈
1580:T
1557:(
1535:T
1513:(
1499:(
1469:(
1452:(
1417:(
1379:(
1365:(
1361:—
1328:(
1302:(
1294:.
1269:(
1130:)
1126:(
1063:(
1023:(
1009:(
983:(
969:(
942:(
887:(
874:)
868:(
864:•
838:(
821:(
801:(
797:—
780:(
742:(
723:(
695:(
691:—
672:(
668:—
604:(
583:(
476:(
433:(
386:(
369:(
339:(
321:(
302:(
278:(
224:(
207:)
199:·
193:·
185:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
155:(
147:(
144:)
138:)
100:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.