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 redirect to 2010 North Carolina Tar Heels football team. Content already merged. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unc football investigations[edit]

Unc football investigations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable controversy article. Unreferenced and is likely WP:OR. Yousou (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ... possible merge Not notable enough as stand-alone, but might be information merged into appropriate UNC page(s). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge - as per Quartermaster, not notable enough for own article (WP:NOTNEWS), if it is a merge should be without a re-direct as it is an extremely unlikely search term. Codf1977 (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to appropriate UNC article and add verifiable sources. 173.8.11.157 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge worthwhile content into 2010 North Carolina Tar Heels football team, the most suitable article avaliable. That would be the best place for this information. Oh, and the content sorely needs an update, since the mentioned game against LSU has already been played. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Now that a section has been included in the main article, this one is redundant. I also don't think a redirect is necessary; it might even be misleading if there were past rules issues concerning the program (though I don't know if that's the case). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge right now it looks like a great candidate for Wikinews...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I'll write up a section in the 2010 team's article. It's definitely notable, with tons of RS, ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.) but WP is WP:NOTNEWS, a this should be a section in the 2010 article. Nolelover 12:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it should be retitled "UNC..." Nolelover 12:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have entirely rewritten the article, and merged it into 2010 North Carolina Tar Heels football team. I am also leaving a note on the talk pages of everyone who has voted. Nolelover 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This merge looks satisfactory to me. As a searcher, I'd probably never think of looking for an article "Unc football investigations in the first place, and would probably look up the article on UNC Football first to see if any hanky-panky was listed there. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like the merge too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, no reason to delete, as the redirect may or may not be useful to some readers looking for that information, but I see no harm in it. Nice work by Nolelover on salvaging the material for the season article. Strikehold (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2010 North Carolina Tar Heels football team seems most logical, as this doesn't seem notable enough for a standalone article... and in fact it's already been done, so redirect this page to the season article and be done with it. –Grondemar 14:31, 25 September 2010 (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.