- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 01:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Mexico, South Carolina
- Mexico, South Carolina ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell, there's never been a place in this part of South Carolina known as "Mexico". See the talk page for a discussion of this subject; previous ANI discussion, extensive checking of current and late-19th-century sources, and contacts with the local historical society together led to the conclusion that no sources for "Mexico, South Carolina" existed, except for the GNIS, and it seemingly has misclassified some other type of location as a community. This conclusion prompted it to be PRODded several years ago, but it was later recreated, and it's the recreation that I've brought here. The GNIS data are based either on (1) Board on Geographic Names files, or (2) USGS quads (see 34°56′16″N 81°00′17″W / 34.9379°N 81.0048°W on the Acme Mapper and pick the "Topo" option at top right), but the GNIS entry gives no record of a Board decision, and there's no Mexico on any zoom resolution of the USGS quads, so I'm led to conclude that the GNIS is in error, leaving us with no actual sources for the existence of a Mexico in this location. Nyttend ( talk) 13:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete based on your extensive research. I'm impressed that you contacted the local historical society. If it's still coming up in GNIS data it might be a good idea to salt the page so it doesn't get recreated, thereby perpetuating the spread of misinformation. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 13:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete From the remarkable work that Nyttend put into the research of this article, this clearly shows this town just doesn't exist and never did. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 13:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. I'd like this nominally deleted, but I see no harm in a redirect. It's possible to search online Maps to find this place, and according to the non-GNIS reference in the article, the unnamed area was annexed some time in the 1960s. There's a property website which even defines its boundaries. [1] However what it doesn't have is multiple independent non-trivial sources. And there seems to be so little to say (it's only a small area) that it could be said in the Rock Hill article, per WP:GEOLAND. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I actually considered redirecting it. However, I figured that deletion would stick more firmly, and as ONUnicorn suggested, salting would be a good idea; people tend to be more friendly toward salting than they are toward full protection of a redirect that's not a likely vandalism problem. By the way, that property website's about page notes that its descriptions of locations are developed by algorithms; it's an autogenerated big data website, and (at least in the USA) these websites typically depend on the GNIS and similar websites, so when there's a GNIS error, we can expect autogenerated websites to reflect the error unquestioningly. Nyttend ( talk) 13:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The annexation map provided as a source doesn't even list Mexico, it shows that entire area that was annexed in 1961 as "Industrial Hills". RegistryKey (RegEdit) 14:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, as I noted on the talk page almost 7 years ago, it is very unlikely that this was an inhabited place. Abductive ( reasoning) 17:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. When I hear a reference to Mexico in South Carolina, the first thing that comes to mind is South of the Border in Dillon, which is a good 120 miles from Rock Hill. A redirect wouldn't be unusual in circumstances like this, but given the absence of any solid evidence, probably the best course here is to skip it. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 18:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment As someone who lives there, don't redirect. South of the Border in Dillon and the middle of town in Rock Hill are apples and oranges, trust me. RegistryKey (RegEdit) 21:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: In 2009 I wrote on the article's talk page: "This suggests that Mexico may have been the name of a railway station or junction, or alternatively of a post office." I would add the possibility that it was the name of a large farm or ranch. But on the basis of Nyttend's work, I am willing to agree that the listing in GNIS is wrong and that the article should be deleted. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete based on your research. (It's worth noting that it does appear on more recent USGS maps, but I think that's just copying the same error; it doesn't appear on the 1984 topographic map, and there's no way a new unincorporated community could have formed since then on land that had already been incorporated by Rock Hill.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:32, 27 August 2016 (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.