Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Carolina Lowcountry


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

South Carolina Lowcountry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:OR. Found several books that throw the term around, but none that actually give a definition to what it actually is. The article is completely OR from top to bottom, and I see no sources that give a clear definition of what the South Carolina Lowcountry is. "Economy" and "Tourism" merely parrot other articles. The fact that this article has been completely devoid of sources SIX YEARS is appalling, but likely stems from the fact that there seems to be no clear definition for "South Carolina Lowcountry". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is not a political geopgraphics designation, so boundaries are a little unclear. That there is disgreement over teh exact boundary is not relevant if there are sources that cover the topic.  In fact, even the boundary between teh US and Canada to this day still has disputed areas so clearly the lack of a concrete bpundary is not a reason for deletion.  A google book search for Couth Carolina Lowcountry easily turns up entire books devoted to the topic:  Slavery, Disease, and Suffering in the Southern Lowcountry, Rural Life in the Low Country of South Carolina, Plantations of the Carolina Low Country, Indians of the South Carolina Lowcountry, 1562-1751, Moon Spotlight Charleston & the South Carolina Lowcountry, and a multi-volume history series amongst many more.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do any of those actually give definition to the term, or do they just throw it around casually? All I could find was the latter. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Slavery, Disease, and Suffering in the Southern Lowcountry on page xxiii has maps that I cannot access through the preview; Rural Life in the Low Country of South Carolina has a map on p. 6; Plantations of the Carolina Low Country maps out the plantations on pp. 8-9. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I acknowledge Hammer's point about the dearth of sources, but the Lowcountry is a well-known and well-covered region of the state. The lack of a single formal definition is not surprising, but we do have the South Carolina Department of Parks & Tourism and the Lowcountry Council of Governments definitions (already cited in the article). Maybe also worth noting that the Bureau of Labor Statistics offers statistics for the "Low Country South Carolina nonmetropolitan area"  and that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service provides a simple explanation of the term: "a geographic and cultural area distinguished by low-lying lands that extend from the Atlantic coast to the western sandhills of the state." --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Low Country is a well-known geographic area - see this from National Geographic. It may be better to rename the article Low Country (South Carolina and Georgia) because the region properly covers parts of both states. Majoreditor (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - A well-covered topic that passes WP:N with ease. I agree with the notion to rename the article to Low Country (South Carolina and Georgia). Northamerica1000(talk) 09:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, and, as Upstate New York, shows the lack of an officially-defined boundary does not automatically qualify it as OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:37, 28 December 2012 (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.