Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redondo Sycamore, Los Angeles


 * 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. If an appropriate redirect target is found feel free to create the redirect. J04n(talk page) 01:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Redondo Sycamore, Los Angeles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no evidence that this "district" exists. It's not mentioned in a single reliable source that I can find. Even on a straight-up google web search the only thing that comes up aside from this Wikipedia article is a bunch of stuff about a general contractor in San Diego. If it doesn't exist as a place in the world, it's certainly not notable. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Without commenting yet on whether the article should stay or not, I do find evidence that the neighborhood exists. The PICO Neighborhood Council (a city-sanctioned community advisory group) says it has a designated slot on its board for a Redondo Sycamore representative. There also appears to be a Redondo Sycamore Neighborhood Association, possibly under the PICO Neighborhood Council. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh Lord, if they're letting neighborhood councils make up their own subneighborhoods we're all in for a heck of a ride! I would guess that the city doesn't make up the titles for the neighborhood councils, they let the neighborhood councils make up their own.  Good find, though.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. It exists, but it's not notable. No WP: Reliable sources attest to its notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any evidence that it is anything other than a gleam in the eye of the members of the Neighborhood Council. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the larger neighborhood it's a part of. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per NorthBySouthBaranof and Merge whatever we can. While it's somewhat notable since by WP:NGEO it does officially exist and people live there, it hasn't received WP:SIGCOV. If it does in the future, un-redirected. Ansh666 08:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In what sense do you mean that it "officially" exists?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant that it's recognized by a semi-official governmental body. "semi-officially exist" would have been better wording, in hindsight. Ansh666 17:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment If the article is redirected, it's unclear what the target should be. Mid-Wilshire? Central Los Angeles? The only verified information we have about this subject is that it is part of the P.I.C.O or PICO Neighborhood Council, but that council or neighborhood does not have an article, so it's unclear to me why one of its sub-neighborhoods should have an article. It's also unclear on what basis we could choose a redirect target, since we know nothing else about the neighborhood. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at the sub-neighborhoods that have designated seats on the P.I.C.O. Neighborhood Council, there are four besides this one. South Carthay and Carthay Square are redirects to Carthay, Los Angeles. Of the other two, Wilshire Vista, Los Angeles was created last month and Wilshire Highlands, Los Angeles was created just a few days ago; they have no more content or sourcing that the subject under discussion, and IMO whatever is done with this article should also be done with them. The same user also recently created similar articles for Pico Park, Los Angeles and Wilshire Vista Heights, Los Angeles, which do not even have the virtue of having designated seats on the Neigborhood Council, so IMO are even less verifiable and less defensible than the others. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2013 (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.