Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Carolinas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Wizardman 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Carolinas

The Carolinas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Completely original research, largely based on stereotypes and assumptions. Nothing here which isn't/shouldn't be said in the specific North Carolina and South Carolina articles. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Completely faills WP:VERIFY, it is not very notable. This is not a neutral article. Meldshal42Comments and SuggestionsMy Contributions 02:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I disagree that "the Carolinas" comprise a region. That would be like saying that California and Oregon constitute a region, or Missouri and Oklahoma. They don't. They're part of larger regions (the Pacific West and the Midwest, respectively), as the Carolinas are part of the South. There is nothing unique to North and South Carolina which sets them apart from the rest of the South/Mid-Atlantic/Southeast/other defined regions. To arbitrarily make up new regions would be original research, which isn't allowed here. Also, there is nothing made by the combination of North and South Carolina which isn't the exact sum of its parts -- in other words, there's nothing unique about them as a pair which shouldn't be/isn't covered by the individual North Carolina and South Carolina articles. The only thing the two states share is half a name, and that doesn't justify an article; again, it's both arbitrary, and original research. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Take a look at this Google search. Although I'm not saying that a Google search per se proves anything (though there are over 2 million hits for the term), just look at what the hits are - "Everything you could ever want to know about life in the Carolinas", "FirstHealth of the Carolinas", "LifeShare Of The Carolinas", "Foundation For The Carolinas", there are a few people who think that there is such a thing as a region called "The Carolinas". And your claim that it's the same as California and Oregon, or Missouri and Oklahoma, is a straw man, because there's no regional term for those combinations of state names. But there is a regional term for the Carolinas, because it's used. And see this. Over 1200 hits for the term in news.google, alone. Somebody seems to think it's a real term. Corvus cornixtalk 02:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it's not a "real term". I'm saying it doesn't belong here. The fact that the term "the Carolinas" is used as a term of convenience doesn't mean that it deserves an article here. Let's say that the media, utility companies, and the tourism industry decide to start using the term "funky cold semi-Western interior northern Midwest thingy" to collectively refer to Montana and Wyoming. Does that mean that we write an article about it? Of course not. Because North and South Carolina share half a name, it's a term of convenience to collectively refer to them as "the Carolinas" when what you're exclusively referring to is those two states. That doesn't make it a region of the nation. The region to which both North and South Carolina belong is the South. Let's say that we have a reason to collectively refer to only Georgia and Florida...let's say there's a major natural disaster there, or we run a company which does business there and only there, or something else similar...does that mean that that's now a region of the county? Of course not. Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi...and I'm sure you can find eighty billion pages on Google about Katrina which solely mention "Louisiana and Mississippi"...does that mean that those two states now comprise a region? No. Even if there were a convenient name by which to refer to the two of them, they don't comprise a region. This nation has long been divided into its constituent regions: the South, the Midwest, the northeast, the mid-Atlantic, New England, etc. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everything that's not OR would fit just as well in the articles on the individual states. Anturiaethwr (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:VERIFY.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 03:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Make redirect to Province of Carolina. That's all that really needs covered collectively; agree with the comment above that it's mainly a term of convenience in reference to the modern states. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It would really depend upon whether it's enough of a common term to warrant a separate disambig. My thinking was, since the province article explains in the intro that it is the former area that is now two states, that someone looking for collective information on both would be best served there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep "This article does not cite any references or sources". It's been up for nearly five years, and it is about a valid topic-- yes, a lot of people do refer to "the Carolinas", and refer to "Western Carolina" mountains and "East Carolina" seashores as well. That's why this article deserves more than the "Cheerwine is our favorite soft drink" or "They shore love barbecue and cole slaw sandwiches" comments that are added by every NC or SC editor who happens to stop by. My favorite part of the history was where one editor made a change with the summary "Replaced page with 'hi'". It was followed by someone else who fixed it and added "Reverting possible vandalism...." Them Carolinians is sharp as tacks, that's for sure. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Carolina Hurricanes, the Carolina Panthers. Named so, because they are representative of the region, and not just one state or the other. Grsz11 19:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • .... or because "Charlotte Panthers" doesn't sound masculine enough. Mandsford (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Or that too. Grsz11 23:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the reason for the choosing the first name "Carolina" was expressed very openly during the NFL expansion derby in the early 1990s. I remember Jerry Richardson talking about how Charlotte's central location in "the Carolinas" would benefit the NFL, because unlike a coastal city (Jacksonville) or a city split by major waterways (St. Louis, Memphis, and Baltimore), fans from the Carolinas would be drawn from a 360° radius around Charlotte. And, as this article points out, only the NFL was fooled; in the eyes of Carolinians, the idea was stillborn. Another reason to DELETE this article, methinks. Unschool (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I reside in Eastern Canada (a similarly named region) and even I have heard of the term. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wow, reading the article, the thought that hit me was that maybe this article should be moved to "Differences between North Carolina and South Carolina". I mean, the article undercuts itself at almost every turn. The only argument that I can see for arguing that the Carolinas constitute an entity is the naming of all the region's sports teams the "Carolina Whosits". That's just not enough for me. My proposal would be that Carolinas redirects to a dab page, listing the states, the sports teams, and the province. Unschool (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to Province of Carolina. The Carolinas differ from merely adjacent US states in having their origin in a single political entity which was later divided into two. --SJK (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but primarily as a disambiguation page, which should explain the name and list uses for Province of Carolina, North Carolina and South Carolina, but see comment under the Dakotas AFD that Georgia (US State should also be listed. DElete everythign else, or distribute it to the articles on the individual states. The term was used historically, so that there should be a short article. When pruned, the "unreferenced" tags will be redundant. Any "stub" tags should alos be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2008 (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.