Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Carolinas (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.190.89.154 (talk) at 21:18, 8 June 2008 (→The Carolinas). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Carolinas

AfDs for this article:
The Carolinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

poorly referenced article consisting mostly of original research and of questionable notability. Last AFD resulted in keep largely because editors had heard of the term "the Carolinas" yet verifiable 3rd party references have not materialized since then. Rtphokie (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: per the message on his user page, user Mr. IP (talk · contribs) is also the IP user 65.190.89.154 (talk · contribs), which is dynamic.

  • Strong keep The two states constitute a notable grouping. I would note that although the nomination knocks the article as poorly referenced, this nomination was made precisely on the occasion - within hours - that a person (myself) began the process of adding sources to the article. Further, the nominator did not respond to a message I left on his/her talkpage, choosing to delete it without a reply instead. Anyway, the article discusses a grouping of two states which is perceived to exist by the public in the same way that the American South is perceived to exist, and is very notable and common, pulling up countless Google hits. The subject is very easily referenced, and the process of referencing is underway. This seems like a particularly inauspicious time to nominate it for deletion, especially when rejecting all attempts at discussion. Therefore, I must suggest we keep this article. Mr. IP (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a second message on the nominator's talk page in an attempt to work this out. Mr. IP (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator, I cant delete anything. This is a discussion, that may lead to a deletion but not necessarily. Please take a look at WP:AFD, which describes the process in full.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand - I've been at Wikipedia for years and participated in dozens of AFDs. What I'm wondering about is why you wouldn't respond to my notice on your page after the prod before going to AFD. The article has issues, but they aren't insurmountable. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure that everyone who is interested can participate, discussion needs to happen on the article's talk page or here in this AFD, not my talk page.--Rtphokie (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I do appreciate replies and attempts to work on an article before going to AfD. It's probably just my wiki-mentality, but I always, always want to work with people on improving an article before I go into the big ol' XfD queues. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that since making this comment, I have continued to improve the article's sourcing. I would urge everyone to give this article a chance to continue getting better. Mr. IP (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article sat with tags expressing concerns with the lack of references for 4 months. Dont take the AFD personally, it's a discussion. If others feel that the topic is notable enough and isn't already covered sufficiently in articles like Province of Carolina and has sufficient verifable references, then the article will stay. The term is one that is used but I dont know that it's notable enough to warrent an article. Seems like a selective merge to Province of Carolina would be fine as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking it personally - it's not an article I worked on until recently, so there's no WP:OWN issues here. I just don't understand why the day you would nominate it is the day I started adding refs! 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that the article could be quite useful if improved rather than deleted. "The Carolinas" is a real grouping that is regularly used in speech and thought, and many people from outside the region may be interested to understand the similarities and differences between the states in a way that is best addressed through an article on the grouping rather than the individual state articles. Further, there is precedent at The Dakotas. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Information about the geographical grouping "The Carolinas" is more appropriately held in an article of that name. There's a good bit of information unifying the two states that would have to be duplicated in the two articles, also. I feel that any issues with this article can be addressed without deleting it. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any geographical information in the article, unles you are suggesting that "The Carolinas is a term used in the United States to refer collectively to the states of North and South Carolina" is geographical information. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about cultural info. The grouping is geographic and cultural. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Where is this cultural or geographic information in this article? Point it out please. I frankly have no clue from these two replies as to what your main argument is for keeping this as a separate article, when it duplicates information from the three more relevant articles, or otherwise contains trivia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep on the grounds that I don't feel the nominator's rationale goes far enough to justify renominating an article less than 2 months after it passed a previous AFD challenge. We must not keep renominating articles until a desired result occurs. If there had been no consensus, or strong indications of an improper vote due to sockpuppetry, etc (both scenarios I've seen in recent days) then fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. In addition, I note Mr. IP's comments that efforts are being made to improve the article.23skidoo (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the previous Afd, I'm amazed that was ever closed as a keep. The one valid opinion to keep as a distinct article was a weak keep from Mandsford (talk · contribs), on the basis it was currently rubbish but might expand. All others were basically, 'I've heard of the term', or bizarrely, citing the name of the Carolina Panthers, or merge/redirects. The existence of the article seems to me to be mere convenience, just because it is used in everyday speech when referring to both states, in the same way as The Dakotas, which is an equally poor article with some extremely weak references, that was Afd'd at the same time, and closed as keep by the same admin. Just having heard of a term is not the standard for inclusion in wikipedia as a separate article. This is exactly what disambiguation and redirection was invented for. I challenge anyone trying to improve this article to produce a source that treats this term as anything more then a mere convenience to avoid having to say "North and South Carolina", or information that cannot be included in N/S Carolina or province articles. Keeping this article just so you can compare the two states on political/social grounds is extremely pointless, and possibly even a violation of not using wikipedia to make a point. If it is a meaningfull term beyond the convenience explained above, it really can't be that hard to add some usefull content, but the length of time it has stayed in this form suggests not. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, while I respect your opinion and the valuable context you add to the discussion with the information about the parallel Dakotas article (I didn't know the history there), I must continue to disagree. I have no idea what the situation with the Dakotas is, but the Carolinas are a distinct region within the South in the minds of many (most?) living here, and this is something that will be established with sources. What's more, the article is already significantly improved over its condition two days ago, and efforts are ongoing. I agree that a portion of the original content was OR and possibly had been intended to make some sort of point - though frankly I can't tell what point that was, so it wasn't that egregious, I don't think - but I'm coming to this article with a fresh perspective. Mr. IP (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I await these sources, and a concrete reason why any information presented doesn't belong in the other three articles. The Dakotas appears to be a carbon copy of this debate, i.e. the fact that the phrase appears in Google means its a notable concept/term/subject, rather than something a weathergirl would say to save her 3 seconds of air time. Frankly, that the term somehow 'resonates' with the local residents is somewhat irrelevant, and quite counter to the other information that goes to great lengths to assert the two states are different politically and socially. I'm seriously wondering what makes these comparisons special compared with comparisons of N/S with other neighboring states. In fact looking at what you've added so far, it either forms historical information pertaining to the historical province, or contrasts the difference between north and south, pretty pointless when there is no argument being made that there is any close connection between the two where differences become notable, giving the impression the only reason the contrasts are being made is because the states share the same name, contrary to the principle of not using an article name to make other irrelevant statements. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment', the phrase doesn't resonate with locals either. In my 15 years living in North Carolina and travels in South Carolina, I've never heard a real person use the term, just corporations or weathergirls (as you say). People don't say they are from "The Carolinas" they say that they are either from North or South Carolina. You will hear "Carolina" but that refers to either North or South Carolina but not both. In collegiate athletics, each state doesn't really acknowledge the other. Sweatshirts with "Carolina" exist in each state, in North Carolina they are white on baby blue in South Carolina they are black on garnet. On occasion when you do hear the term "Carolinas", it's someone trying to sell you something. Examples: Your Carolina Ford Dealer, The Carolina Hurricanes, the Carolina Panthers. South Carolinians have no special sense of ownership for these sports teams because of the generalized "Carolina" in the name. Yes they follow the teams but it's because of proximity not naming, just like many in North and South Carolina follow the Atlanta Braves. I'd venture to say that North and South Carolina are even more different than North and South Dakota topographically, economically, historically and especially culturally. North Carolina BBQ is different than South Carolina BBQ so they really dont even share much culinarily either. Lumping them together just doesn't make sense. It makes more sense to lump North Carolina and Virginia together and South Carolina and Georgia together. (not that I'm proposing that as solution).--Rtphokie (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the sports issue, which is why I haven't restored that section. I think it's OR and un-referenceable. However, I disagree with you strongly on the lack of similarities, the lack of subregional identification and connection, and so on. I would observe that the similarities between the states are very strong in their eastern portions, and that they decrease as one goes westward. It is precisely this complex relationship of residual connection and similarity, stemming from a shared history, that this article is needed to cover. That, and the article's continued improvement in recent days, are the primary reasons we should turn away from deletion. Mr. IP (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our argument isn't based on the Google search which turns up countless instances of the term - it's based on the importance of illustrating the historical and cultural relationship between the two closely-connected states for the benefit of non-Americans and other outsiders. Anyone unfamiliar with the region is likely to be very curious indeed about what these two states with the same name have to do with one another, and whether they form a grouping - information that is somewhat out of place in either respective article, and can be covered easily in this one. When you add to that the fact that the two states are indeed perceived as a distinct subregion by both residents and close neighbors (and we do have articles on regional groupings and subgroupings), it makes a lot of sense to have an article about that subregion. The article about the original colony can reasonably cover the initial history, but cannot cover any of the residual ties and connections, which are just as important. That is why this article has existed for several years now, and that is why someone is bothering to significantly improve it now. The article is currently undergoing major changes - changes that started just before the deletion efforts, not after - and this is a very bad time to kill it. This article is already much better than it was two days ago, and it can be much better than that. Give it a chance - I am. Mr. IP (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got the same impression from the previous AfD. Sometimes admins do no more than mark it as "keep" or "delete" because that's all the rules require. However, there was not a consensus to keep as-is the last time through. There has been no improvement on this article and two months is long enough to show that nobody cares enough to improve it. The Dakotas were more recently a single political entity, and share more cultural similarities today, yet that article is also very brief. For an example of a good article on a minor geographic-cultural grouping, see Pacific Northwest. North and South Carolina have fewer similarities than Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, within a similar population in a smaller area, hence aren't all that unified. Of course, if someone can find material for an article, they should write it. There's just no evidence for that material as yet. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found that a little odd too. Differences would be more appropriate in the individual North Carolina and South Carolina articles. Also, I see that the opening paragraph has been reworded but is essentially brief summary of Province of Carolina rather than offer anything new on the topic as it relates to this term. Though there are some good references in the historical section of [[The Carolinas}] which might improve Province of Carolina which currently has no footnotes. Also it's worth pointing out again, that timing of AFD and any improvements in the article doesn't matter, consensus on the notability of this topic does.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where, though, would the differences and similarities between the two states be included in the respective articles, and how would the divergence between the two states since the split be included in the Province article? There's no reasonable way to include this information in any of those, so the information would simply be deleted and lost. When that happened, any outsider looking to understand the relationship between these two similarly-named states with a shared history - and the subregion that they form in American cultural geography - would have absolutely no information available to them. A better solution is to provide such information in a well-referenced article called The Carolinas, linked from the articles of both states...especially since this is a very real term and a very real grouping about which much information exists. It's going too far to delete it, especially when we all know the information will never be merged into anything. For example, while overlooking the history of this article, I saw that the Cackalacky article had been deleted and merged into it...only to have every bit of content gradually stripped away (including the last bit by yourself!) so that the encyclopedia no longer provided any information whatsoever on the term, which is relatively common. In a similar manner, any and all information that this article contains - and which this article could contain if expanded - will be lost in the process of "merge and delete", especially since there is no reasonable vessel for it. Deletion here is a bad idea. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Carolinas_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=218032752"