Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/South Carolina

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to South 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|South 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 South 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:
watch

South Carolina

Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina)


Interstate 20 Business (South Carolina) (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 propose merging to Interstate 20 in South Carolina because this topic does not demonstrate sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. The content here needs to be summarized down to the basics, and it should be merged into the target article as a "Related route". There is too much content for a 2+1⁄4-mile-long (3.6 km) highway, and when pared back to what should be here, we'll be left with two paragraphs and a condensed junction list table, appropriate for merger. Imzadi 1979 → 18:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Noting that same thing to Interstate 85 Business (South Carolina), only difference that is it’s a freeway, not a boulevard. TommyNFG (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Like I-85 Bus. being allowed in the first place long ago due to few pdf links/sources (by year updates). There should be some pdf links/sources for I-20 Bus. Instead of deleting it, put some more of the pdf documents of the I-20 Bus. like what’s already done to I-85 Bus. TommyNFG (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Just updated the pdf sources with Highway Logmile Report and 1964 map (from http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/scrm/id/203/rec/1). Compare it to I-85 Bus. now, I-20 Bus. has more pdf source than I-85 Bus. TommyNFG (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
@TommyNFG: a PDF isn't a magic key; it's a file format. Just because a source is a PDF doesn't mean it contributes to notability.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand how we judge notability for a stand-alone article on a minor topic like a special route like this. You also misunderstand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
This is a minor roadway, and on that basis, we normally look at WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". (For WP:GEOROAD purposes, this is notable, but that doesn't guarantee a stand-alone article.) SCDOT and FHWA wouldn't be considered independent of the subject, so we fall back to the third-party sources like the news media. I just don't see that here for this subject. For I-85 Bus., half of the sources in use come from the news media and are directly related to the subject roadway, and that's going to contribute to notability.
I do see a route description that's written about two or three times longer than necessary. Honestly, I could condense all of that section into one paragraph, maybe two, without a reader losing a sense of the roadway. Add in one more paragraph on the history, and a condensed junction list table (way too much detail there in the notes, inclusion of intersections that should be excluded per MOS:RJL), and you have a subsection of the parent article. That calls for a merger, not a stand-alone article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:23, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

BigDeuceFOF


BigDeuceFOF (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)

All of the sources used in the article are either AI-generated or not independent. I was unable to find any reliable secondary sourcing. मल्ल (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This is false. He is a top independent artist and verifiable with many links and media traction. They are not generated and are from valid sources. There are multiple secondary sourcing. ~2026-36688-13 (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
BigDeuceFOF is a top artist and on a top independent label and this information is valid they are trying to wrongfully remove account. ~2026-36980-51 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
He doesn't meet musical notability criteria. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 20:19, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree that this article should be deleted. It does indeed seem that the sources are AI-generated or first-party. My own independent research on BigDeuceFOF did not yield anything that would satisfy WP:N. Kognise (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete: No RS used, nothing to show musical notability, no charted singles, album releases on a major record label, no awards won. This also reads as PROMO, with no sourcing that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)