Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Carolinas (2nd nomination)


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Carolinas
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

poorly referenced article consisting mostly of original research and of questionable notability. Last AFD resulted in keep largely because editors had heard of the term "the Carolinas" yet verifiable 3rd party references have not materialized since then. Rtphokie (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: per the message on his user page, user is also the IP user, which is dynamic.


 * Strong keep The two states constitute a notable grouping. I would note that although the nomination knocks the article as poorly referenced, this nomination was made precisely on the occasion - within hours - that a person (myself) began the process of adding sources to the article.  Further, the nominator did not respond to a message I left on his/her talkpage, choosing to delete it without a reply instead.  Anyway, the article discusses a grouping of two states which is perceived to exist by the public in the same way that the American South is perceived to exist, and is very notable and common, pulling up countless Google hits.  The subject is very easily referenced, and the process of referencing is underway.  This seems like a particularly inauspicious time to nominate it for deletion, especially when rejecting all attempts at discussion.  Therefore, I must suggest we keep this article. Mr. IP (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left a second message on the nominator's talk page in an attempt to work this out. Mr. IP (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an administrator, I cant delete anything. This is a discussion, that may lead to a deletion but not necessarily.  Please take a look at WP:AFD, which describes the process in full.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand - I've been at Wikipedia for years and participated in dozens of AFDs. What I'm wondering about is why you wouldn't respond to my notice on your page after the prod before going to AFD.  The article has issues, but they aren't insurmountable. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To ensure that everyone who is interested can participate, discussion needs to happen on the article's talk page or here in this AFD, not my talk page.--

Rtphokie (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I do appreciate replies and attempts to work on an article before going to AfD. It's probably just my wiki-mentality, but I always, always want to work with people on improving an article before I go into the big ol' XfD queues. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would note that since making this comment, I have continued to improve the article's sourcing. I would urge everyone to give this article a chance to continue getting better. Mr. IP (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment this article sat with tags expressing concerns with the lack of references for 4 months. Dont take the AFD personally, it's a discussion.  If others feel that the topic is notable enough and isn't already covered sufficiently in articles like Province of Carolina and has sufficient verifable references, then the article will stay.  The term is one that is used but I dont know that it's notable enough to warrent an article.  Seems like a selective merge to Province of Carolina would be fine as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking it personally - it's not an article I worked on until recently, so there's no WP:OWN issues here. I just don't understand why the day you would nominate it is the day I started adding refs! 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Province of Carolina. Right now, all the article says is that Carolinians like barbecue and have a funny pet name for their state. It is a few months old. Article does not just lack references, it lacks content. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the article could be quite useful if improved rather than deleted. "The Carolinas" is a real grouping that is regularly used in speech and thought, and many people from outside the region may be interested to understand the similarities and differences between the states in a way that is best addressed through an article on the grouping rather than the individual state articles.  Further, there is precedent at The Dakotas. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the page is a nonsense of trivia, notable information about 'the carolinas' belongs in the two state articles or the province article. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Information about the geographical grouping "The Carolinas" is more appropriately held in an article of that name. There's a good bit of information unifying the two states that would have to be duplicated in the two articles, also.  I feel that any issues with this article can be addressed without deleting it. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any geographical information in the article, unles you are suggesting that "The Carolinas is a term used in the United States to refer collectively to the states of North and South Carolina" is geographical information. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about cultural info. The grouping is geographic and cultural. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? Where is this cultural or geographic information in this article? Point it out please. I frankly have no clue from these two replies as to what your main argument is for keeping this as a separate article, when it duplicates information from the three more relevant articles, or otherwise contains trivia. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep on the grounds that I don't feel the nominator's rationale goes far enough to justify renominating an article less than 2 months after it passed a previous AFD challenge. We must not keep renominating articles until a desired result occurs. If there had been no consensus, or strong indications of an improper vote due to sockpuppetry, etc (both scenarios I've seen in recent days) then fine, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. In addition, I note Mr. IP's comments that efforts are being made to improve the article.23skidoo (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the previous Afd, I'm amazed that was ever closed as a keep. The one valid opinion to keep as a distinct article was a weak keep from, on the basis it was currently rubbish but might expand. All others were basically, 'I've heard of the term', or bizarrely, citing the name of the Carolina Panthers, or merge/redirects. The existence of the article seems to me to be mere convenience, just because it is used in everyday speech when referring to both states, in the same way as The Dakotas, which is an equally poor article with some extremely weak references, that was Afd'd at the same time, and closed as keep by the same admin. Just having heard of a term is not the standard for inclusion in wikipedia as a separate article. This is exactly what disambiguation and redirection was invented for. I challenge anyone trying to improve this article to produce a source that treats this term as anything more then a mere convenience to avoid having to say "North and South Carolina", or information that cannot be included in N/S Carolina or province articles. Keeping this article just so you can compare the two states on political/social grounds is extremely pointless, and possibly even a violation of not using wikipedia to make a point. If it is a meaningfull term beyond the convenience explained above, it really can't be that hard to add some usefull content, but the length of time it has stayed in this form suggests not. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mick, while I respect your opinion and the valuable context you add to the discussion with the information about the parallel Dakotas article (I didn't know the history there), I must continue to disagree. I have no idea what the situation with the Dakotas is, but the Carolinas are a distinct region within the South in the minds of many (most?) living here, and this is something that will be established with sources.  What's more, the article is already significantly improved over its condition two days ago, and efforts are ongoing.  I agree that a portion of the original content was OR and possibly had been intended to make some sort of point - though frankly I can't tell what point that was, so it wasn't that egregious, I don't think - but I'm coming to this article with a fresh perspective. Mr. IP (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I await these sources, and a concrete reason why any information presented doesn't belong in the other three articles. The Dakotas appears to be a carbon copy of this debate, i.e. the fact that the phrase appears in Google means its a notable concept/term/subject, rather than something a weathergirl would say to save her 3 seconds of air time. Frankly, that the term somehow 'resonates' with the local residents is somewhat irrelevant, and quite counter to the other information that goes to great lengths to assert the two states are different politically and socially. I'm seriously wondering what makes these comparisons special compared with comparisons of N/S with other neighboring states. In fact looking at what you've added so far, it either forms historical information pertaining to the historical province, or contrasts the difference between north and south, pretty pointless when there is no argument being made that there is any close connection between the two where differences become notable, giving the impression the only reason the contrasts are being made is because the states share the same name, contrary to the principle of not using an article name to make other irrelevant statements. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment', the phrase doesn't resonate with locals either. In my 15 years living in North Carolina and travels in South Carolina, I've never heard a real person use the term, just corporations or weathergirls (as you say). People don't say they are from "The Carolinas" they say that they are either from North or South Carolina.  You will hear "Carolina" but that refers to either North or South Carolina but not both.  In collegiate athletics, each state doesn't really acknowledge the other.  Sweatshirts with "Carolina" exist in each state, in North Carolina they are white on baby blue in South Carolina they are black on garnet.  On occasion when you do hear the term "Carolinas", it's someone trying to sell you something.  Examples:  Your Carolina Ford Dealer, The Carolina Hurricanes, the Carolina Panthers.  South Carolinians have no special sense of ownership for these sports teams because of the generalized "Carolina" in the name.  Yes they follow the teams but it's because of proximity not naming, just like many in North and South Carolina follow the Atlanta Braves.  I'd venture to say that North and South Carolina are even more different than North and South Dakota topographically, economically, historically and especially culturally.  North Carolina BBQ is different than South Carolina BBQ so they really dont even share much culinarily either.  Lumping them together just doesn't make sense.  It makes more sense to lump North Carolina and Virginia together and South Carolina and Georgia together. (not that I'm proposing that as solution).--Rtphokie (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the sports issue, which is why I haven't restored that section. I think it's OR and un-referenceable.  However, I disagree with you strongly on the lack of similarities, the lack of subregional identification and connection, and so on.  I would observe that the similarities between the states are very strong in their eastern portions, and that they decrease as one goes westward.  It is precisely this complex relationship of residual connection and similarity, stemming from a shared history, that this article is needed to cover.  That, and the article's continued improvement in recent days, are the primary reasons we should turn away from deletion. Mr. IP (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Our argument isn't based on the Google search which turns up countless instances of the term - it's based on the importance of illustrating the historical and cultural relationship between the two closely-connected states for the benefit of non-Americans and other outsiders. Anyone unfamiliar with the region is likely to be very curious indeed about what these two states with the same name have to do with one another, and whether they form a grouping - information that is somewhat out of place in either respective article, and can be covered easily in this one.  When you add to that the fact that the two states are indeed perceived as a distinct subregion by both residents and close neighbors (and we do have articles on regional groupings and subgroupings), it makes a lot of sense to have an article about that subregion.  The article about the original colony can reasonably cover the initial history, but cannot cover any of the residual ties and connections, which are just as important.  That is why this article has existed for several years now, and that is why someone is bothering to significantly improve it now.  The article is currently undergoing major changes - changes that started just before the deletion efforts, not after - and this is a very bad time to kill it.  This article is already much better than it was two days ago, and it can be much better than that.  Give it a chance - I am. Mr. IP (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, articles aren't deleted because of a lack of quality, they are deleted for a lack of notability. This article could be improved to featured article quality and could still be deleted if it's on a non-notable subject.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I got the same impression from the previous AfD. Sometimes admins do no more than mark it as "keep" or "delete" because that's all the rules require. However, there was not a consensus to keep as-is the last time through. There has been no improvement on this article and two months is long enough to show that nobody cares enough to improve it. The Dakotas were more recently a single political entity, and share more cultural similarities today, yet that article is also very brief. For an example of a good article on a minor geographic-cultural grouping, see Pacific Northwest. North and South Carolina have fewer similarities than Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, within a similar population in a smaller area, hence aren't all that unified. Of course, if someone can find material for an article, they should write it. There's just no evidence for that material as yet. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now Culture, Economy and Politics sections have been added, but they highlight the longstanding differences between the states. What gives? Potatoswatter (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I found that a little odd too. Differences would be more appropriate in the individual North Carolina and South Carolina articles.  Also, I see that the opening paragraph has been reworded but is essentially brief summary of Province of Carolina rather than offer anything new on the topic as it relates to this term.  Though there are some good references in the historical section of The Carolinas}] which might improve [[Province of Carolina which currently has no footnotes.  Also it's worth pointing out again, that timing of AFD and any improvements in the article doesn't matter, consensus on the notability of this topic does.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where, though, would the differences and similarities between the two states be included in the respective articles, and how would the divergence between the two states since the split be included in the Province article? There's no reasonable way to include this information in any of those, so the information would simply be deleted and lost.  When that happened, any outsider looking to understand the relationship between these two similarly-named states with a shared history - and the subregion that they form in American cultural geography - would have absolutely no information available to them.  A better solution is to provide such information in a well-referenced article called The Carolinas, linked from the articles of both states...especially since this is a very real term and a very real grouping about which much information exists.  It's going too far to delete it, especially when we all know the information will never be merged into anything.  For example, while overlooking the history of this article, I saw that the Cackalacky article had been deleted and merged into it...only to have every bit of content gradually stripped away (including the last bit by yourself!) so that the encyclopedia no longer provided any information whatsoever on the term, which is relatively common.  In a similar manner, any and all information that this article contains - and which this article could contain if expanded - will be lost in the process of "merge and delete", especially since there is no good vessel for it outside of this article.  Deletion here is a bad idea. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We need a separate article comparing N and S Carolina as much as S Carolina to Georgia or N Carolina to Virginia. Notable differences and events can go to Southern United States, South Atlantic States, or the historically appropriate subject. "Cackalacky" doesn't need to redirect anywhere in particular because WP:DICT. It could go to Southern United States. If it's a name for N and S alike, mention in both those articles. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a comparison article, though - it's an article on a subregion. As part of describing that subregion, it discusses differences between the two states. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is all it does do, making it a clear violation of creating an article to make a point, there is absolutely nothing here worth recording that actually documents what The Carolinas have in common (aside from obvious duplication). MickMacNee (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment According to Province of Carolina, the North and South were unified for only sixty years, ending in 1712. The split occurred because of political differences and separate capitals from the seventeenth century. It seems more likely that similarities are a more recent result of the border being settled, and no more notable than any other border. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All the same, they were unified, they share a history, they form a subregion, and they are referred to collectively - and not just by weathergirls and such. An article discussing their relationship and the subregion that they form is useful and important, and deleting it would be a mistake.  An article on the history of relations between Virginia and West Virginia would be equally useful, in my view, although putting it under The Virginias would be dubious, as such a term is not in widespread use.65.190.89.154 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Virginia was founded in 1607 and split in 1863. That's 256/401 years vs. 60/366. The entire matter of previous unification and shared history is covered by Province of Carolina.
 * (I am Mr. IP) The entire matter of previous unification is covered by that article, but not shared history. The two states have an ongoing shared history as a subregion which is not covered by that article. 65.190.92.233 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Potatoswatter (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Consider it a disambiguation page of sorts. ;) jengod (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That would not meet quality standards. I hope you're not seeking retribution for my present AfD nomination of your article Articles for deletion/The Glory of Christmas. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Might as well point out that this user does not seem to agree that this article is justified. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the same time, it's pretty much a keep vote and certainly not a delete vote. 65.190.92.233 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an invalid vote, we don't have 'sort of' disambiguation pages, its either a db page, or an article. MickMacNee (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Disambig it. One sentence of explanation, with links to the Province of Carolina, North Carolina and South Carolina articles. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - no valid reason for deletion --T-rex 15:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reason is "poorly referenced article consisting mostly of original research and of questionable notability." If you disagree with that, you should validate your WP:VOTE by saying so. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * like I said no valid reason given for deletion.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep standard grouping. Plenty of sources available. DGG (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's this kind of throwaway vote at Afd that makes this process a farce. You can see yourself from the article that use of this term as a separate concept from 'North and South Carolina' has absolutely no basis in fact or sources, but I severely doubt you even spent the time here to even appreciate that basic fact. Fly by vote tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, insulting the wrong editor, this User:DGG seems rather literate and only casts thoughtful votes. You might look at his/her edit history before you hurl this kind of insult next time.  --Blechnic (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let him talk for himself why don't you, I have been around wikipedia long enough to appreciate DGG's opinion, thank you very much. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, this is about something else that's making you all spit-fire angry. I didn't speak for him, but you are now.  --Blechnic (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, then--I was clearly giving my quick summary of what I regard as the essential issue--it is a notable grouping, widely referred to as such, and therefore notable. That's how I interpret the sources and the debate. I see no point in repeating all the good arguments already presented. Incidentally, I don't vote here, but discuss and give my opinion. Nobody has to take it, but it represents my view of the issue. I sometimes give rather long comments at AfD, but not when it's as clear as this to me. DGG (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Here's the google news hits.  I can't even pretend to follow the reason for this AfD?  --Blechnic (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even after reading the above comments? Or is wikipedia Google 2.0? MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment? --Blechnic (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Google news = Wikipedia? Yes or no? Bearing in mind, as I'm sure you have, all the previous comments about 'Carolina/s' being a manufactured sports team device with no real world meaning. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Still have no idea what you're saying or asking if anything. Maybe you're just angrily ranting about me, too, because someone posted an article you don't like.  Don't understand your last sentence, either.  --Blechnic (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am equally bemused by your comments. MickMacNee (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And the last sentence requires you to have read this entire debate beforehand, as I have said elsewhere. If you want to understand the debate, you need to have done this. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Want to understand the debate?" You're obviously infuriated that someone wrote an article you don't like. It's too silly for understanding.  yawn  --Blechnic (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And you obviously have nothing sensible to say in this debate. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone's fighting desperately hard and personally to get rid of a fine article. All your efforts will amount to nothing, but wasted time, though.  I've changed my vote to strong keep, just to make sure it's clear.  --Blechnic (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Google News is irrelevant to an article on history, culture, etc. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Beam me up Scotty – Here we have an article that has been around since 2003 – longer than the nominator I might add – Well referenced and even inline cited from reliable – verifiable 3rd party sources – over 19,000 Google Scholar hits, as shown here – well written.  Hey,  I can understand the nominators reasoning for this Afd, it was the Klingons doing. ShoesssS Talk 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume every single one of those Google scholar links makes no mention of North Carolina and South Carolina as distinct entities? Or perhaps, like this nonsense of an article, they actually talk about the differences between the two in respect of barbecue sauces or levels of unemployment. As before, this is an absolute nonsense of a rationale for keeping this article, which if no one has realised by now, is only a run around attempt to keep the article Cackalacky, which was rightly deleted. You're being played. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We should delete Oregon also, because there's an article on the United States, too. Or is it we should delete Pacific Northwest because there's an article on Victoria and one on Idaho?  It's not policy that regions are deleted if their subregions have articles.  Not on Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia.  --Blechnic (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - First, they all mention the division of North and South. However, the main thrusts of all the articles discuss the Carolina’s as one, not two separate and distinct entities.  Two,  I did not say every one of the articles, and for a sake of argument lets say 98% are totally bogus, were based on the Carolina’s  That still leaves well over 300 Google Scholar hits.  Now let us just take a look at the first page that deals with the Carolina’s in the context we are discussing in this subject.  Now remember, we are just on the first page of hits.  We have cites in the Ecological Society of America – Modern Philology – Smithsonian and National Academy of Sciences.  To me that is impressive.  Oh and by the way, none of the articles discusses barbecue sauce or unemployment.  Now let us review your rational of a “…run around argument’’.  I believe  Cackalacky does not have a separate article here on Wikipedia!  Does the term Cackalacky redirect here to the The Carolinas yes.  But what does one have to do with the other?  Or are you just talking to me in Klingon and pulling my leg :-).  ShoesssS Talk 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just research the history of the Cackalacky article. And honestly, if you can provide any scholarly article that deals with the two states as a distinct area over and above a convenient linguistic device, then I'm all ears (look at the current article, is it anywhere near giving any information of this form?), otherwise, it just looks like you are using an extremely dumb tool to make an extremely smart point. MickMacNee (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentLet me start with providing an article dealing with the “Carolinas’” as one entity, rather than two, just to satisfy your request, for just one significant citation. How about this one .  As you will note it is from Pediatrics an extremely well respected and verifiable medical journal.  Regarding the Cackalacky piece, I still cannot see what you are driving at?  Can you explain further.  Thanks. Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 01:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopoedia, not a dictionary. I did not ask for a use of the name in a title, that frankly proves nothing beyond its use as a replacement for 'North and South Carolina', which is the exact phrase used further down the page. So if you can, please explain what the compelling reason is that pediatrics in the Carolinas 'region' is any more important than any other arbitrary region. Is there some historical or cultural reason for this, that is worthy of documenting in an encyclopoedia? Or is it not true that this is just a linguistic convenience when considering both states together. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am the user going by Mr. IP in the earlier debate. I think that what MickMacNee is referring to is the fact that I first found and began repairing this article through a search for the word "Cackalacky".  That article had been deleted and redirected to The Carolinas, so I ended up there.  I searched this article for the word "cackalacky" and found nothing, whereupon I checked the talkpage and saw what had happened.  I went through the histories, restored much of the information from that article, added citations, and then went about repairing the rest of the article.  It was around this time that the deletion nom came in.  I have no strong feelings about the term "Cackalacky", as I live in the state and feel that it is a dumb (but real) nickname.  I can state categorically that attempts to repair and keep this article have nothing to do with some sort of end-run around the deletion of the "Cackalacky" article.  I had no prior involvement with either The Carolinas or Cackalacky, and if I were going to try to resurrect the latter, I would do so directly.  Either this is a misunderstanding of my history with these articles by MickMackNee, or it is an accusation that I'm lying and am involved in a secret effort to resurrect the Cackalacky article by way of The Carolinas (which would possibly be the dumbest secret conspiracy of all time).  Even if that's what he's saying, I would appreciate if he would take this up with me directly rather than by proxy.  65.190.92.196 (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, oh, I vote for the conspiracy theory! --Blechnic (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Scrolling through the list of ghits, they almost all refer to larger geographical groupings, eg "Carolinas and Tennessee," "Carolinas to Maine," etc. Almost all of them deal with ecology and use the plural term to describe wildlife ranges. That's not the subject of this article. Potatoswatter (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Even though I urged to turn the article into a disambig above, AfD should not be used to "solve" a content dispute. There is no doubt that people use "The Carolinas" a lot, and they have a shared history. Therefore it can't be deleted. It can't be redirected to Province of Carolina, because that entity doesn't exist anymore. So basically it must exist. Then the concerns about the length and content of the article need to be addressed on the article's talk page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:52, 15 June 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.