Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sug-ubon


 * 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. After considering the points in the XFD, I contend this was the best option. Nja 247 16:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * 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 Bislig City. Redirected, article not deleted thus some merger of relevant information can be undertaken by a willing editor Nja 247 08:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sug-ubon

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

Article recently created with the opening phrase "Land of the Ebnex and Cooldudes the locals call this place". (Also created as Sug- ubon with most of the content copied from Baton Rouge.) Unreferenced. A Google search turned up no English-language hits indicating this was a known place. Declined Speedy and contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are some limited Google results that confirm that it's a real place, but that's not enough to merit an article. The current de facto practice is that even articles on individual barangays should assert notability and be verifiable... The article says "Sug-ubon" is a subdivision of a barangay, which would raise its bar even higher. TheCoffee (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability and per TheCoffee. --seav (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/ Redirect to Bislig City, per clarifications on precedent above. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 03:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Seav and TheCoffee. Renaissancee (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested above, in accordance with precedent. -Moritheil (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - What part of the article is worth merging? It's three sentences, one of which states that it "is under Bislig City", so I don't see the logic of redirecting there. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything worthy of merging, and don't think even a redirect is needed. TheCoffee (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Where to start? The references, or lack thereof; the NPOV, or lack thereof; or its use in an encylopaedia, or lack thereof. HJMitchell    You rang?  07:37, 3 May 2009 (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.
 * 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.