Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/North Carolina

Points of interest related to North Carolina on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/North Carolina/archive

Hannah Telle (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)

A good article for WP:Verifiability but it appears to fail notability as an actor and as a musician. The Shelby Star is a great source here but it is a local one. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be enough ongoing reliable coverage to justify notability. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Could you please be specific, which ones? IgelRM (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Significant coverage in Hardcore Gamer, Variety, GamesRadar+, Push Square, TheGamer, The Shelby Star, and The Gaston Gazette, plus some not-insignificant mentions in The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media. That the coverage is ongoing stands out to me too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. Hardcore Gamer and The Gaston Gazette are being discussed below so I will skip over those.

  • Variety: Telle is mentioned and quoted in the article, although not the subject of the article.
  • GamesRadar+: An interview with Telle, she is frequently interviewed, but that does not make someone notable.
  • Pushsquare: Not the highest of sources, tertiary reporting on a video with her.
  • TheGamer (2 times): Not the highest of sources, checking the opinion piece: Praises her acting in Double Exposure, significant but not sure how opinions count for notability.
  • The Gaston Gazette: Appears to be the events section of a local newspaper, Telle is mentions giving a concert, not WP:SIGCOV
  • The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media mentions: I don't think should have need an article on everything that gets ongoing mentions and I believe these can be covered on the Life Is Strange article.

  IgelRM (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

  The subject does not need to be the source's main topic for coverage to be significant. I believe the article passes the WP:GNG. (And, to be clear, Push Square and TheGamer are considered generally reliable per WP:VG/S.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  TheGamer is definitely considered "Situational" per WP:VG/S? And Push Square is similar to Nintendo Life, a enthusiast blog that I would evaluate differently for notability.

  I would agree that the subject does not need to be the main subject of coverage, but could we also agree that from your long list just Variety and TheGamer seem relevant for this evaluation? IgelRM (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  TheGamer is "situational" overall, but in this situation is considered reliable: News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Same goes for Push Square. All references are relevant, and I evaluated all of them when making my judgement; I firmly believe the subject is notable. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see, I was just familiar with the Screen Rant note above in that table. (Although I find the note, "experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247.", citing VG247 in particular bizarre, but this is getting outside this discussion)

  I poorly worded the sentence on Push Square, what I meant is that I don't think Push Square can count for GNG alone and was not commenting on reliability.

  Unfortunately we aren't getting further anymore, are we? IgelRM (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's that bizarre—VG247 has been considered a reliable source for at least 14 years—but you're right, that's a discussion for elsewhere. And no, I don't think this will go any further—nor does it have to. I stand by my initial judgement. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - there are several articles that establish notability such as Shelby Star and hardcoregamer. With so much coverage she also meets WP:BASIC.Darkm777 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  As I said in my nomination, the Shelby Star is good but it is a local story and therefore does not give GNG. The Hardcore Gamer feature is an interview. The most notability I see is her 2024 nomination for Best Performance. Edit: I would pass her WP:NACTOR, but it says "multiple" and I only see Life Is Strange and Life Is Strange: Double Exposure. IgelRM (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Local newspaper coverage does count for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the way the article is written as a feature on a local person, it's clear to not be sufficient. IgelRM (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

There are 2 hardcore gamer articles this and this, while the first is mostly an interview, there are 3 paragraphs of intro about her, which can be used towards notability. The 2nd article has a couple of quotations but is not an interview. The policies say that when someone has multiple articles from one website, they can be combined. Provided, we combine these, we can count as one full good article towards notability. Also don't forget WP:BASIC which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, multiple sources can be combined to show notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand (you accidentally linked the same article twice) your argument. From the interview article, I see one paragraph that mentions her but not WP:SIGCOV:

"While the quality of the writing and dialogue have polarized critics -- although the title has vastly improved in these aspects with each episode’s release -- the voice acting is a factor that has remained consistent and brilliant throughout every episode, especially when it comes to the on-screen chemistry shared between the voice actresses for Max and Chloe Price: Hannah Telle and Ashly Burch respectively."

• "Hannah Telle Reveals Life Is Strange ‘Definitely Exceeded All of my Expectations'"

This piece paraphrase the interview that ran the week before.

• Hannah Telle ‘100 Percent’ Interested in Reprising Role for Life Is Strange Sequel

This reports on the interview she gave the fan-made Blackwell Podcast. She is quoted for answering she would reprise her role. The article then switches to the producer saying there will be new characters. Not SIGCOV combing the 3. IgelRM (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. What is considered deep or significant coverage can be subjective, but reliability of sources is objective and only changes very slowly. I see a great multiplicity of good news sources and I'm strongly inclined to keep. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Are you referring to User:Rhain above, if not please be specific? E.g. what I see is coverage from The Shelby Star, Variety and TheGamer. IgelRM (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I want to knowledge the continued effort working on the article by the editor since my nomination. Unfortunately, her role in Two Pints Lighter (2014) doesn't push this over WP:NACTOR. IgelRM (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Rise Motorsports (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)

The article currently only has 3 sources - 2 are social media and the last is an entry list. After a search I could not find a 3rd party source. Definitely nothing to pass any sort of WP:SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This title was originally created as a redirect. Thoughts on that?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be totally opposed to that, but wouldn't be necessarily in support either. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Zach Peterson (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 unable to find any coverage of this assistant basketball coach to meet WP:GNG, other than a few sentences on team-specific blogs (1). JTtheOG (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Basketball. JTtheOG (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. I also couldn't find any coverage of Peterson individually. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Georgia (U.S. state), North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)