Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/North Carolina

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to North Carolina. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|North Carolina|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to North Carolina. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


North Carolina

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

AfDs for this article:
2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets notability guidelines.

Note that this article was previously deleted and then undeleted.

  • WP:EVENT - this content has no enduring historical significance. This does not have widespread national or international impact. This is arguably routine in the sense of shock news/water cooler stories/viral phenomena.
  • There are no lasting effects
  • The geographical scope is limited to Duke
  • The duration of coverage is limited to 2010 with one more article a few months later
  • There is one NYTimes article surveying the person in question but the focus is on the aftermath rather than the event in question or even the controversy in question
  • WP:NOTNEWS -

    Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."

  • In the original AFD, the author wrote

This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated.

  • However, after 10 years, I think it is fair to say that one of the responses to that is quite accurate

But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

There are also WP:BLP considerations but I am more reluctant to specifically cite policy because this is not a biographical article. I invite others to do so if they are more confident on the matter. Transcendence (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Vinson

Carson Vinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am struggling to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources available contain routine coverage of an invite to a college all-star game, with a notable exception being this piece from Alabama News Center, which has maybe a half-dozen sentences of independent coverage of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the two articles cited in the article, I would say (i) the depth is there in both cases to consitute WP:SIGCOV, (ii) such depth is rare for offensive linemen (especially at non-majors), (iii) AL.com (Alabama's largest media outlet) doesn't fail WP:INDY just because the article provides a link allowing readers to purchase tickets to the Senior Bowl, an annual collegiate all-star game that is played in Mobile, and (iv) I don't see any COI in the piece from Alabama News Center, since there is no connection (unless I'm missing it) between Vinson and the utility company that funds the outlet. Cbl62 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, a corporate newsletter with no published editorial policy or staff page from an energy company with a shady recent history of media manipulation doesn't strike me as a reliable source to report on college football, especially as the main piece of SIGCOV on a BLP. JTtheOG (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can call it "a corporate newsletter". It is a news website owned by a public utility company. While unusual, this is unfortunately an era in which corporate/billionaire ownership of media (including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc.) has become increasingly common. I don't believe that such ownership taints all of a media outlet's coverage. Clearly, any coverage of the owner's other business interests would involve a conflict of interest and thus be non-independent. However, as stated above, there's no conflict here with reportage on a local college athlete. Even if that were a problem, there's coverage in multiple other media outlets, including those set forth below. Cbl62 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it’s a matter of reliability not COI. A company’s media wing is not the same thing as a newspaper of record owned by a billionaire. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See the points raised above. Also, his notability is supported by being the first player from an HBCU ever selected for the honor of playing in the Senior Bowl. In addition to the two SIGCOV sources already cited in the article, there are others. E.g., (3) this from SI.com focusing of Vinson being the first HBCU player selected to play in the Senior Bowl (quite a historic honor), (4) a six-minute piece from Fox 54 (here) focusing on the historic nature of Vinson's selection for the Senior Bowl, (5) this piece from WHNT Huntsville, and to a lesser extent (6) this from SI.com rating him one of the top offensive tackles in FCS and (7) this rating him as one of the top three HBCU football players. All said, I think it's enough to pass our GNG standard. Cbl62 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He's not actually the first HBCU player ever selected to the Senior Bowl. There have probably been a lot. Those sources just mean he's the first one (and possibly only one) this year. This additional source about Vinson says "Pro Football Hall of Famer John Stallworth, an Alabama A&M legend and 1974 Senior Bowl alum, was on hand to deliver the invitation." Stallworth was a HBCU Senior Bowl selection in 1974. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WikiO. That's helpful and makes Vinson's selection less impressive. I'd probably lean more toward Draftify or a weak keep in that case. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep, per Cbl62. Probably has enough coverage, especially since it's rare for low-level FCS offensive tackles to receive much coverage at all. (Also, WikiOriginal-9 is correct regarding HBCU players at the Senior Bowl. He's the only one this year, not ever, although it looks like there's only been one other across the 2022-25 Bowls per AL.com, so still pretty rare.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Draftify makes sense as well per Cbl62 – given that he was selected to the Senior Bowl, there's a decent chance he could be chosen in the upcoming 2025 NFL draft (in the Alabama News Center article, his coach said that "He's had every NFL team come and look at him this year – He's gonna get drafted in this year's draft".) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/North_Carolina&oldid=1264726806"