Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tar Heel Blue Steel

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 merge to 2010–11 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team. Insufficient reliable secondary sources to establish standalone article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tar Heel Blue Steel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a tough one. This is basically a Neologism. In the article all but one of the sources are primary sources. As per WP:NEO, secondary sources are needed to show notability of a neologism.

The one secondary source (ESPN) is definitely reliable, but it's much more about the players than about the term, IMHO. Yes the term is used, but it's not really the topic of the article. And that's the only secondary source given. With only the one secondary source given, and it being a weak one on the term IMHO, I just do not see this meeting the notability criteria as it is. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - me, neither. - Sitush (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook WP:NEO issue. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2010–11 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team. This is an interesting side storyline for this year's UNC basketball team, but doesn't warrant its own article. There is a little news coverage as an quirky human interest story, but no evidence that this is a tradition that will last more than 1-2 years tops. I think there is some good content in the article that would be a nice section of the yearly season page, but really don't see this as notable enough for its own article. Rikster2 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable solution to me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and to me also. Not sure why I didn't think of that as a solution. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally added several sites that reference blue steel as the walk-ons of UNC mens basketball which are all from third party sites. If more references are needed please make it known before any deletion takes placeCoreyjweb (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:NEO link that a couple of us have used. References that use the term are not enough. What is needed are references about the term. And the point of this debate in part is that such references likely do not exist. If you can find good sources that are about the term, then you are well on your way to showing us incorrect with this debate. But just terms that use it are not enough. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article I most recently added directly references the first popular use of the term as well as the background of each individual team member. It brings up how Carolina has always had a tradition of walk-ons in a supporting role, and this years students brought the term and the popularity to the cult stars.Coreyjweb (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this link? The problem is the same as with the ESPN article. The linked article is really about the people, not the term. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Rikster. Does not pass notability thresholds for a stand alone article. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Rikster seems to get it right. If this develops further, and better/more sources regarding the group become available in the future, it can be split out at a later date; but, there just doesn't seem to be enough stand-alone encyclopedic information here. Seems to be more an interesting footnote to the 2010-11 season. — Ched : ? 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with Rikster. Ncjon (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wasn't there already an AfD on this, perhaps with a different spelling? Anyway, Delete or Redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 21:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.