Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curse of Mike Hart

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 current version, could be recreated as a redirect to an appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Curse of Mike Hart[edit]

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

Totally un-encyclopedic, contrived nonsense. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Delete this is the kind of article that makes people laugh at Wikipedia. Not notable, not sourced, original research, violates WP:BLP, possible hoax, take your pick. I'd agree to speedy this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]

~~Keep~~ Neutral (see below) as reliable secondary sources do exist for the subject (Google). Please, don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]
- What about a house of superstition and bias? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]
  - Please take a look at the article now; I've cleaned it up a bit and added references to reliable published sources. Guoguo12--Talk-- 21:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]
    - Guoguo12, well, now at least it's well formatted. However, that's doesn't make the subject itself anymore suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. What you really need to think about is the essence of the subject at hand. The subject is not Mike Hart nor is it Michigan or Michigan state football. It's a meme that implies that one man's comments in 2007 are magically impacting the actions of hundreds of others up to three years later. It's being used as a cutsie-poo theme to write hackneyed sports columns, like the ones cited. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]
      - Please note that the general notability guideline states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". In addition, WP:RS states, "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 01:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]
        Please note the following topics have also received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: Lindsay Lohan drug addiction, Lindsay Lohan trial, Lindsay Lohan jail sentence. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]
        "Articles that share a superficial commonality do not necessarily all meet the requirements necessary to write a well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia article," claims WP:ALLORNOTHING (essay). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]
        You can quote as many policies as you want, but you're missing the spirit of the matter. This subject, as it is framed, is inherently non-neutral and contrived in its scope. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]
        With all due respect, policies like the general notability guideline are widely accepted standards. If you think the subject (the article itself) is "inherently non-neutral", then place a {{npov}} tag on the top of the page, instead of subjecting the article to deletion. If you meant instead that this discussion is "inherently non-neutral", you are correct; you yourself described the subject as "a cutsie-poo theme". Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]
        You are missing the point of the general notability guideline. If order for a topic to be notable about it must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. But is that alone sufficient? How narrowly can we draw the lines around a topic? An NPOV tag would be appropriate of the article was a biased rendering of a neutral topic. The topic is intrinsically biased itself (not to mentioned a contrived absurdity), like if we had an article called Jewish curses taking about the curses that Jewish people have allegedly put on civilization at large. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]
        The topic may be biased ... for University of Michigan fans. You appear to be affiliated with or have a vested interest in the University of Michigan football team, as, according to X!'s Edit Counter, you have made over 570 edits to "Michigan Wolverines football". I don't mean to make a personal attack or to disparage you for your past contributions, which I respect; instead, I would like to confirm that you do not have a conflict of interest. After all, one of your reasons for deletion is that the Curse of Mike Hart is "contrived nonsense", which sounds a lot like "I don't like it." Guoguo12 --Talk-- 00:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]
        I can assure you that my position would be exactly the same for an article called the Curse of John L. Smith to explain Michigan's four straight wins during his tenure as Michigan State head coach. You're quite right that I've done a ton of work on Michigan Wolverines football. I created the page for Mike Hart (American football) in 2006 and am the leading editor per gross number of edits for the article. You might also want to check who the leading editors are for articles about Michigan State coaching greats like Clarence Munn and Duffy Daugherty and current Spartans coach Mark Dantonio. My objections with the article have nothing to do with rooting allegiances. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]
        Just for the record, I agree with Jweiss11, and I'm unbiased. I dislike both teams >:) Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]
        Very well. In that case, let us continue with our discussion. You asked "how narrowly can we draw the lines around a topic" because you apparently do not find significant coverage in reliable sources alone significant. Perhaps we should ask about this at ~~Wikipedia talk:Notability, as recommended at WP:DR. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)~~ Statement withdrawn (see below). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC) []

~~Delete~~ Merge - Borderline vandalism, non-notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]

At the very most, it can be a section at Mike Hart (American football), like the Curse of Bobby Layne is at Bobby Layne. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Keep or Merge.We are not voting on if the curse is real, but if it has been covered in depth in notable sources. Which it seems to have been. Borock (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Merge (with a redirect) to Mike Hart and/or Paul Bunyan Trophy. There are quite a few Google hits, but virtually all of the ones in reliable sources are only excerpts of the New York Times blog post. The only other source I found that makes prominent use of the term is from The Oakland (Michigan) Press, and even then, it's only mentioned in the title and once in the text. Unless other sources can be found, I think notability has yet to be established. Strikehold (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Delete or Merge with Paul Bunyan Trophy. At best this should be part of the rivalry article. A three game win/losing streak is not historically significant enough to warrant a stand-alone article. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]

That sounds like a good plan to me. Borock (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Which one? Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]

The plan is to delete this page and note Hart's comments in 2007 at Mike Hart (American football) and Paul Bunyan Trophy. I am against leaving this as a redirect because even that would be a reification of the absurd and the contrived. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Hold on, please. I'm asking Borock whether he means he supports completely deleting or merging. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Comment: This Afd has also been discussed on the article talk page. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 22:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Delete or Merge with Paul Bunyan Trophy (and reduce to one or two sentences with direct quotation). As of right now, only one source uses the word "Curse" -- this is problematic. Until we get 10 or so different mainstream sources using the word "curse" it violates WP:OR as an independent article (we could re-consider if we find the same word used in an AP article, ESPN article, LA Times article, etc). The only legitimate usage I see (right now) is in the rivalry game article and using a direct quotation from the source. Obamafan70 (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Clarification--as it stands, it is non-notable due to insufficient usage of the term "Curse". I made that point but then misdiagnosed it as a WP:OR issue. Apologies for any confusion, Obamafan70 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Perhaps we could to move it to, say, "Mike Hart Controversy" or something. What do you think? Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Guoguo12, what you should spend some more time thinking about is the reflexivity of this article's existence, or really the existence of an article for any new abstraction. A google search of "Curse of Mike Hart" now returns this article as the #4 search result, which in turn may result in more people writing (hack, bloggish) journalism about it, which in turns bolsters the article's source-ablity here. This article was likely created by MSU fans with little interest in building Wikipedia at large (Danielkoons, Msuisthebest), who wanted to legitimize this neologism and you are effectively defending that effort. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Change it to Mike Hart Controversy and re-write it as follows "Mike Hart made statement x. Michigan State then won y games in a row. New York Times editor z described it as a "curse". This would help your cause considerably. In my opinion, those 3 sentences could be included in Mike Hart or Paul Bunyan Trophy. Otherwise, it seems non-notable. Also, for procedural purposes, please refrain from directing ad hominems and/or suggesting motives for other users WP:AGF. In most cases, such arguments are fallacious and not particularly constructive even if they are true.Obamafan70 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

This is one of those cases where it is constructive and particularly instructive. I am not suggesting that the aforementioned users had any intent to harm Wikipedia in any way. Rather, I want to illustrate the larger implications at play. If an accusation has been made in bad faith against anyone, it was made against me above, supported by incomplete, selective research. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Jweiss11, you are correct; the first dart was thrown at you. I wasn't directing my comments at you -- it was just an effort to keep this from escalating to a spat, as well as keep this strictly factual. You handled the attack admirably, better than I have in past dialogue (see my talk page for a real gem). And thanks for clarifying; as indicated by the barnstars I've awarded -- I'm well aware of the fruitfulness of your contributions! Obamafan70 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

I apologize for my accusations, although I did not intend for them to be perceived as such. I only meant to clarify that you are, in fact, arguing for this Afd on behalf of the Wikipedian community. I also did not mean for my inquiry to seem like an argument against your Afd. I would rather look into such issues personally, rather than have it be investigated in some noticeboard. I personally have nothing to gain or lose from the deletion of the article. I simply stumbled upon the Afd and argued against it purely because of the general notability guideline and because I felt it was my duty to improve and preserve any article that could potentially be useful. I now find several valid arguments placed against keeping the article, including notability, possible original research, and lack of reliable sources. Perhaps this is a case where WP:IAR overrules policy, or perhaps I am entirely wrong in citing so many relevant and irrelevant policies and essays. Either way, your fair reason and sound arguments have compelled me to neutrality. Thank you for preserving a sense of civility throughout the majority of this discussion. Happy editing. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

No worries re: the accusations. I'm glad we've reached a consensus on this. Thanks for your input. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Merge and redirect to Paul Bunyan Trophy. This is a legitimate and real part of the rivalry, and to the extent that it is not suitable for an article on its own, should be incorporated into the article about the rivalry. cmadler (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Delete or Merge: Don't keep. As above, this certainly does not merit a dedicated article; at most, it should be short blurb in the rivalry and/or Mike hart article. De FaultRyan 19:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Merge. Come on, folks, let's not get our panties in a bunch. I laughed out loud when I read this. Anyone who has been working on Wikipedia for a while will recognize an article that's not "encyclopedic," as this one clearly is not, but let's not lose our sense of humor in the process. Clearly, as a stand-alone WP article, it needs to be deleted. However, this well-sourced bit of humor would make a light-hearted and entirely appropriate three-sentence addition to the Michigan-Michigan State rivalry article. Whether it's still worthy of inclusion in the rivalry article three to five years from now, well, we can look at it again later. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Delete non-encyclopedic nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 17 October 2010 (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.