Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villa Susana

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, no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Susana[edit]

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

No indication of importance, fails general notability, unreferenced since December 2012 — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 03:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. It actually strikes me why this wasn't PROD'ed when it was created 5 years ago. 舎利弗 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a tinge of regret. No evidence has been supplied that this is anything other than a small neighborhood in Pasig, and I couldn't find any. The subdivision name doesn't even show up on Google Maps. I would have liked to find something more, because the photo gallery contains evocative images of the subdivision's old-style entry sign and its narrow streets, but unfortunately there don't seem to be any sources to back it up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2014 (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.