Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Sugbo


 * 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 Cebu.  MBisanz  talk 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Sugbo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I believe that this article is problematic. 'Sugbo' appears to be an alternative transliteration, or a historical transliteration, or a prior form of, the name 'Cebu', which is a province of the Philippines. The Cebu article already has some information about the pre-Spanish history of the area.

The present article is sourced only from myspace, and has very little content. The content is barely verifiable, and does not appear to be taken from academically rigorous origins. Although the original poster promises to expand this article, I believe that this would be best done under the pressure of a current AfD and with the help of AfD participants, to see whether a separate article is warranted and can be put together using available materials. Richard Cavell (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete Per nom's investigation and I can't find anything on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete; Redirect it to Cebu if the name can be verified, otherwise delete. - Mgm|(talk) 21:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Redirect to Cebu. Sugbo/Sugbu is the native name of the settlement in Cebu. However, I think kingdom is a little bit excessive since it is more like a chiefdom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. There is even a note saying more to be added. Wikipedia is an ever expanding project with no deadlines. --Balloholic (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So the creator added a note saying more was to be added, so what? It's a 1 sentence article. An article has to be able to pass guidelines the same day its created.  TJ   Spyke   02:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Although Wikipedia is a project that does not run on deadlines, we cannot ascertain whether or not the person who wrote the article will really add more content. Likewise, if the person does add more content, the question still remains whether or not the article's contents are verifiable, notable, OR or what-not.  While I hope that this article will turn out well, I'll wait and see how events unfold. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nuetral - per above. --Knowzilla 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  02:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No assertions of notability. Article has been 1 sentence, only stating that it existed, for the 4 days it has existed. The 1 source provided is nice, but is still just 1 source (and hosted by Tripod, which I believe offers free webhosting to anyone).  TJ   Spyke   02:52, 29 December 2008 (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.