Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inside Carolina

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete - among established Wikipedians, the vote is about split. BD2412 T 01:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Inside_Carolina

Message boards are not suitable for Wikipedia joekiser 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory, but your statement is false; it does cover message boards which are notable (compare Slashdot, Fark). --Sneftel 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• (Modified vote to) Keep and rewrite, per kotepho. Article is as bad as it gets right now, but if it's notable it's notable and deserves a better one. --Sneftel 04:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Message boards are suitable for Wikipedia. Joe Kiser is insane.Stunnaman2k5
• Keep InsideCarolina's message boards are notably influential at the school and often are referenced elsewhere. In fact, a very high selling book (To Hate Like This is to be Happy Forever) spends a great deal of time talking about the goings-on at the IC forums, and it makes sense to have an entry for people to reference. 24.163.67.42 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Scott O
• KeepInside Carolina isn't a "normal" message board. I don't know of any other message boards that have been alluded to in such publications as Sports Illustrated, "To Hate Like This...", etc. IC is a great message board with a rich history. There is no reason for this entry to get deleted. It is merely a collection of articles from IC's beloved fanbase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goheelsduksux (talk • contribs)
• Keep SI/Book reference kotepho 03:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep IC is probably beyond a message board, and is an online community. Members share a common interest in University of North Carolina and the virtual community provides unique experiences and connections. Beyond the avatars are real people, sharing their wit, wisdom, opinions, dumbness, humor, and emotions. IC has been referenced in books and in the media. Wikipedia entry could be very useful in explaining to newcomers and the rest of the world (1) what is in Roy's little finger, (2) who "I'm Stephanie, my name is Stephanie", (3) the legend of Manhattan Heel, (4) the correct spelling of dook, and (5) that Tar Heel must be two words (don't even ask). brewguru

• Speedy keep and close I tried to close this, as it's a bad faith joke for some schoolkid trolls, but was reverted by User:Isopropyl. Could an admin step in and just get make this go away, please? It's not a valid AFD, there is no valid reason given for deletion, and keeping it open is just troll-feeding. Proto||type 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Note that Inside Carolina is not a forum. It's a magazine and website that happens to have a forum (well-stocked by trolls, it seems). Proto||type 15:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. I'm very sorry Proto, but regardless of your opinion of the nomination, this AfD will remain open until there is a consensus or five days are up, whereupon it shall be closed by a closing admin, not us. I do agree that this is a troll magnet, but the article itself is rather inflammatory. Perhaps tidying up the page a bit would be more useful than trying to close this debate. Isopropyl 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that it was a bit premature to be thinking about WP:SNOW with only a handful of votes. kotepho 19:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep All the information is accurate and infomative, I see no reason for deletion
• Keep; I very nearly closed this discussion as a speedy keep, but I don't think this is bad faith on the part of the nominator. It will, however, be a haven for trolls, but that's not his fault. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 18:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 07:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Reference to Matt Doherty is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion and reads as though it were written by someone with a personal and rather petty axe to grind.

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.