Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunset Hills, 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. L Faraone 00:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Hills, Los Angeles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a Notable neighborhood. No reliable sources for any of the information. I can't even find enough valid info to merge it with any other neighborhood in Los Angeles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a actual neighborhood. It's not mentioned in reliable sources (other than a guide to presbyterian churches in 1917, but it's not clear from that listing where the "Sunset Hills" they're talking about is located; it cannot be here, since this area wasn't developed in 1917). It's not mentioned in the LA Times mapping LA project. It doesn't show up in the find sources template links above except for the odd Wikipedia scraper, and it barely shows up in a straight-up google search except for things that seem based on this Wikipedia article. It seems to have been made up by real estate agents based on the existence of a minuscule road, Sunset Hills Road, that tees off Doheny just above Sunset (map link here).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neighborhoods are usually notable IMO, but they have to verifiably exist and be referred to by Reliable Sources. This one doesn't qualify. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete next to nothing on this out there in internetland. Most likely a real estate invention, as mentioned above. If this place was a legit neighbourhood, there would be at least incidental mentions in news reports, books, etc. The Interior (Talk) 01:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.