Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan Football Turnovers


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Michigan Football Turnovers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It is all trivia. Bar Code Symmetry  (Talk) 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This could be the basis for a paragraph in 2008 Michigan Wolverines football team, but is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ESSAY. This is enough to make me wish there was a "G13 - utterly pointless" CSD criterion. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Much better now, but still...utterly pointless trivia/WP:CRUFT. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)Delete This reads like an essay.  Topic is misnamed, this is only about the 2008 football team.  There are only two sentences about Michigan turnovers in the article, and only one source is given for those two sentences.  I found a relevant article on the topic, but we would consider most articles from this website to be self-published.  Any salvageable sentences in the article are obvious content that doesn't need to be saved, and the remainder is an opinion piece.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Completely factual, backed by references, backed by objective numbers, and does not pertain only to 2008.  Dbmillercode (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Article was nominated 33 minutes after its creation.  Those of us who commented earlier here wasted our time because the article was not yet stable.  There are currently 23 times as many edits after the AfD nomination as there are before the AfD nominations (23 after, 1 before).  There is nothing that makes this what Ron Ritzman would call a "High Risk" article that would justify a WP:IAR AfD nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, that the article is looking much better, but trivia is not appropriate for its own article. It would do well as a section for each of those seasons, maybe? This article is way better than what i find patrolling, and what it looked like a few days ago. Bar Code Symmetry   (Talk) 03:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete might be suitable for a sports almanac or maybe a magazine article. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Certainly this is called "drilling down" into detail.  Who is actually going to search wikipedia for turnovers committed by the "winningest" team ever.  I research obscure topics oftentimes, but I don't say to myself "wikipedia needs an article on every Snapple commercial ever made, with air dates, etc."  I just don't think the turnovers committed by a single U.S. college (American) football team are notable for a *separate* article as a matter of good organization.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete overly unencyclopedic detail for an article. There's a limit to how far articles should be split, and this material is simply not enough for a separate article  DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The entire premise of this article, that turnovers is the basis of the team not appearing in a bowl game since 2008, essentially is only based on a few op-ed columns. And these opinions seem to be expressed as facts without explicitly attributing their source. Seems like a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:YESPOV to me. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would even go far to say this may also be a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. The op-ed's cited are dated prior to the 2009 season. So this article then essentially merely lists the turnover stats for 2009 and 2010, and then implies the conclusion – not explicitly stated by any of the sources – that this supposed turnover/no-bowl-appearance relation also applies to those two seasons as well. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.