Deletion of Directional Michigan (3rd nomination)

Comment: Not just a term used by ESPN but by many other networks and additionally used by fans.  Article is well sourced, references are provided.  "|I don't like it" and "|just unencyclopedic" are not reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC)

Comment: per X96lee15's reasoning. as the term fails . 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 , the sources need to "address the subject directly in detail, so o original research|no original research 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 not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:N)

Comment: As I wrote in the previous AfD, ''Show me something that has been written about "Directional Michigan", not just places where the term has been used, and I'll reconsider.'' All we have are uses of the term, which might be fine in a dictionary -- but |Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC)

Comment: Per , "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,  expects multiple sources to establish notability. However, ESPN should be treated as a single source, as  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  suggestion, this should be added to Wiktionary unless multiple sources about the term are identified
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTNEO||WP:GNG)

Comment: Basically a .  Transwikify to Wiktionary if not already done, but conceptually there's not enough here to build an adequate ''encyclopedia'' entry.  As an alternate idea, one could redirect or merge this to Mid-American Conference if there's anything worth preserving
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB)