Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Banks

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 no consensus. - Bobet 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inner Banks

I'm not entirely convinced that this term is in wide use and when it is used, that it is only because of the group listed in this article. The sources provided on the talk page include testimonials from Senators and Representatives (who will support anything generally) and documentary series. The series is funded by the FoR ENC group [1] (sorry its a cache) as well as the other documentary listed [2]. I am concern that the article reads like an advert for the company with all the TMs and things like the captions of the photos and the only resource given. Also a concern of mine is that the article was added by User:Kmills, the "Project Development Associate" for the group. The user and an anonymous IP who appears to be the same person added "____ is located in North Carolina's Inner Banks region" to many North Carolina articles, effectively spamming the article and term. Delete as an advert or, if people are convinced it's an okay term, clean-up to remove the advert nature of the article. Metros232 13:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Where to start on this one? Inner Banks^TM--advertising; "branded the Inner Banks by the Foundation of Renewal for Eastern North Carolina (FoR ENC)"--neologism. "Becoming a popular destination" --according to who? JChap (Talk) 23:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Eh, I think this article should stay, but needs some cleanup and neutrality. It sounds like an advertisement. (I'll put tags to show as such) I personally have never heard of the Inner Banks, but I don't live on the coast; I'm in the Piedmont. I think it's a great term that should be used more often to refer to cities somewhat near the coast like Jacksonville and Lumberton. I wouldn't consider Fayetteville a part of it though... it seems too far west. According to this article, the term "inner banks" and the "outer banks" are just subdivisions of the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina, similar to how the Piedmont Triad, the Foothills, and the Triangle split up the Piedmont region. --TinMan 03:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• This project is actually funded by the Golden LEAF Foundation, which in turn is funded by the North Carolina tobacco settlement. FoR ENC is a non-profit, and does not benefit from "advertising" this brand. FoR ENC owns the trademark to ensure the brand is not misused. As far as "'Becoming a popular destination' --according to who?", the Inner banks has been featured in the Boston Globe, Business North Carolina Magazine, Impressions Magazine, as well as several newspapers (just look at News & Observer summer series on the Inner Banks to see many articles on the impact that development and tourism is having on the Inner Banks, they are doing an entire summer series on this issue because of the fact that it is becoming such a popular destination). As for "I wouldn't consider Fayetteville a part of it though", the Inner Banks refers to the many rivers and intracoastal waterways of eastern North Carolina, Fayetteville is on the Cape Fear River and has worked with FoR ENC to have an article placed in the IBX Newsletter that features Fayetteville IBX Newsletter Winter 2005. Fayetteville sent the article (page 2 of the Winter Issue for 2005) to FoR ENC because they want to be a part of IBX (by they I am referring to Fayettevilles Travel & Tourism department). What I don't understand, maybe someone can explain it, is how this article can be viewed as advertising when Wikipedia has articles on the Outer Banks, the Piedmont Triad, and the Triangle when they are all nothing morBold texte than regional "brands" serving the travel and tourism sectors. I suppose the Inner Banks should be relegated to a blank hole on the map... I suppose the region is underserving of a "brand" since it is the home to many poor and minority people? I have provided more than enough outside sources to prove that this term is in use throughout the region and shown that it has been used outside of the region as well. --Kevin R Mills 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've made changes to the article, removing the trademarks and references to FoR ENC other than the one in the external links section.--Kevin R Mills 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 09:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, now that the trademark symbol and logo picture have been removed. I also did some searches on Google and it seems to be a term that is used with the approximate meaning the article gives (I'm not certain about the area covered, as I did not do an exhaustive search on it). Also, the usages were not associated with the foundation. It would be nice if the article had additional references, though. -- Kjkolb 10:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Must stay, this is what it is - the inner banks !

• Delete. Speaking as a North Carolinian, I can say with certaintly that there's is no such place as the "Inner Banks." It is a marketing concept invented fairly recently to lure tourists and retirees. I suspect that if you polled North Carolinians most wouldn't know what you're talking about. The term appears nowhere in any of the standard N.C. history or geography books or in the N.C. Gazeteer. Neither does it make any sense in geologically. It's ironic that Mr. Mills cites the recent stories in the Raleigh News & Observer as evidence of the popularity and existence of this mythical place since those stories deal primarily with the social and environmental consequences that rapid development is having on rural waterfront communities in Eastern North Carolina. -- gen. ludd 08/02/06

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.