Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barandal

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 keep all. KTC (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barandal

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

No indication of importance for the place. It is a smaller entity/land under Calamba City. There are no sources in the article. Hence, there is no adequate evidence on the subject's notability. Either transfer the contents (since the article is a stub) to the page of Calamba, Laguna or redirect to Calamba, Laguna. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons above:

Comment - a couple of things. According to our article there are 42,028 such administrative districts, the smallest in the Philippines, though each would seen to have an elected council. These are, effectively, suburbs from the looks of it and given that they are officially gazetted and defined, have elected representatives and are inhabited, they would appear to pass WP:GEOLAND. The caveat there would be if we already have articles for each of the smaller purok that come together for form these. We certainly don't need both. But these would also seem to function as worthwhile redirect and merge targets for anything "smaller" like elected councils, schools, hospitals, etc. Beyond that, the nominator is arguing for redirects, not deletion so I'm not certain these actually qualify for AFD. But mass redirect proposals have been accepted here in the past for the sake of avoiding unnecessary article-by-article bureaucracy. But I'm leaning keep all at this stage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those (or most of the) articles do not have a source. (If it has, only a single source and dependent on the government page). It is better to transfer the contents/info per barangay to the article of a bigger area (in this case, transfer the (sourced) content of each Barangay to the page of Calamba, Laguna). Instead of creating all articles per barangay, which I think is unnecessary, it is best to increase depth of the articles. (Unless the barangay is highly important and has a lot of available reliable references). --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of our municipality articles are undersourced also, like those Category:Municipalities of Lanao del Sur and Category:Municipalities of Maguindanao, for example, some of which have only been established in recent years, and are therefore stub articles reliant on just gov't sources. BUT we keep them anyway because they are legally recognized places with elected officials. Just like these barangays that have their own barangay captain and barangay council. See Shariff Saydona Mustapha, Maguindanao and Lumbaca-Unayan, Lanao del Sur and you'll know what I mean. Or shall we also redirect those municipalities to just Maguindanao and Lanao del Sur.--RioHondo (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Carlojoseph14, there is fundamental flaw in your argument. So... St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as suggested above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:GEOLAND.--RioHondo (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the nutshell, A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Barangays hardly received significant coverage (just like the listed barangays) with the exception of a very few barangay like Alabang--Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:GEOLAND says.--RioHondo (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you've selectively quoted from that guideline in a way that supports your argument. But a full reading of the guideline shows your argument has no basis: Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low. Not much more to say, really. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says "typically", which is a far cry from "always". So a simple !vote of "per WP:GEOLAND" is not enough. You need to argue why these particular articles meet the "typically considered notable" guideline. In my !vote below, I provide reasons why barangays are not inherently (i.e., "not typically") notable despite what WP:GEOLAND may suggest. —seav (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GEOLAND. The particular article I landed on will need all the promotional/WP:TRAVELGUIDE info stripped, but that's not a question for AFD, and I might as well do it now. LouiseS1979 (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This may be approaching Snow given only the nominator is still arguing. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Calamba, Laguna or a new list article. It has been my long-time philosophy in Wikipedia that majority of barangays in the Philippines do not deserve articles per WP:NOTABILITY. Sure, WP:GEOLAND suggests that barangays are inherently notable because they are populated and legal entities and with elected officials. But we don't confer inherent notableness to gated communities, suburbs, city/town districts, and quarters, even if all are populated, many are legally recognized, and some have elected officials. Yes, barangays are officially local governments in the Philippines, but many barangays are actually no more than one or two city blocks. For example, the capital city Manila has 897 barangays all with numeric names like "Barangay 1" and "Barangay 2". If WP:GEOLAND didn't exist, there would hardly be any question that most if not all Manila barangays are not notable. But the guideline (which is not policy, if I may add) suggests that Wikipedia ought to have individual articles on all of these 897 barangays. For another example, Pasay has 201 barangays, also all named numerically. Here is the boundary of Barangay 86 in Pasay as shown in OpenStreetMap; it is approximately 1 hectare in size and covers just 1 city block.
To provide more context to this AfD, the question of notability for barangays has been a frequent topic in the Philippine Wikipedia community and has been discussed since almost 10 years now. Here's a discussion in 2005 and a discussion in 2008 for your reference. There is an outdated page that lists various barangay AfD outcomes and as you can see, it's a mixed bag of keeps, merges, deletes, and no consensus outcomes. There used to be a separate article about Barangay Tisa in Cebu City, but a discussion resulted in a consensus that Barangays in Cebu City be created instead. In the intervening years, even that list article was redirected to Cebu City. The same happened with Barangays of Barugo, Leyte—it has since been redirected to Barugo, Leyte.
~~My delete vote is weak because my tendency is to say that all of Calamba's barangays are not inherently notable as I argue above.~~ But I think the articles needs individual AfDs in order to determine actual notability per barangay. —seav (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not include Canlubang in this AfD since it is notable enough to have its own article. --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK barangays or any local government units for that matter are just like any geographic feature and are therefore inherently notable. Basically anything that shows up on the maps is worth having a wikiarticle on, even the most unfamiliar landforms like Mount Annaguan or unknown rivers like Kalawaig River. As long as they are verifiable, we keep them in wikipedia cos WP is like a gazetteer as per WP:GAZ. Even this Unnamed volcano (Ibugos) has an article you see, and if every mountain of the Cordillera Central (Luzon) oder Sierra Madre (Philippines) has a name, we'll keep each and every one of them. A gazetteer thats what WP is, IMHO.--RioHondo (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia also has a gazetteer function. However, a gazetteer is simply a reference work that contains systematic information about places. It does not say that these places should have individual articles in an encyclopedia. If I have a list article like List of barangays in Zamboanga City instead of having individual articles per barangay, then I am still fulfilling the functions of a gazetteer. Your gazetteer argument is therefore irrelevant to the current discussion because the nominator is not saying that we should remove mention of Calamba's barangays, only that individual articles are not needed. —seav (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but my understanding of a gazetteer is that of a geographical dictionary. So if Wikipedia is a geographical dictionary, isn't it just logical to have all geographic features in separate entries? Sorta how Meriam Webster works, or the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names for both natural features such as landforms and artificial features such as villages (barangays) or other settlements, which IMO are far more notable than your dilapidated house of so-and-so, or your regular chapel building of Saint this and that. We need more geography-related articles on the Phils, if you look up the available articles there's not too many compared to buildings or structures, or Philippine entertainment-related articles. And you AfD'ing/merging these settlements, islands, etc is not helping at all. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you either, but gazetteers come in many different formats. There are those that are like dictionaries and databases, as in your examples. There are also those that come in tables and lists (click on "Look inside"). There's simply no requirement that each place has its own article when included in Wikipedia. The place can simply be included in a table or list in a Wikipedia article and it is still arguably a gazetteer.

As for cultural heritage houses and chapels, they pass notability because they have been the subject of reliable sources, which is what WP:NOTABILITY is all about. Somebody, other than the owner of the house, has noted the house/chapel and that it is worthy of research. If you feel barangays are more notable, then that is simply your opinion, but fortunately, WP:NOTABILITY does not depend on a single person's opinion. Besides, many people forget what barangay they are residing in, but they do know about the chapel down the street, or of stories about the old dilapidated house where somebody rich used to live. It is precisely because of what people know and have decided is worthy of writing on that forms the basis of WP:NOTABILITY. More than 99% of houses in the Philippines are therefore not notable but a few ancestral houses and residences are. In the same way, most barangays are not notable because you can't find non-trivial scholarly research about the barangay apart from its census information and elected officials. —seav (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By acknowledging this definition of a gazetteer and knowing that this could mean either of the two formats, means either way is acceptable to Wikipedia. And either format can be used in the Wikifunction as a gazetteer as per the FivePillars. This is not a question of which definition or format should be used. The guidelines only states we can use WP in this function, so we can use and maintain both individual and list articles. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely my original point. Wikipedia being a gazetteer can either have (option 1) individual articles on a set of places, or (option 2) have a single article listing those places. Thus, the gazetteer argument does not apply to the current discussion because the nominator is saying that the information about the barangays should be merged into Calamba, Laguna which is option 2. —seav (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean the gazetteer argument does not apply? It is what Wikipedia is. You can have your wiktionary in a list format or the wiktionary in separate entries. WP can be both. Period. And looking at the votes here, there is obvious preference for the separate entries type of gazetteer.--RioHondo (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP: GEOLAND. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems there are plenty of !votes that only say "Keep per WP:GEOLAND". But the guideline says: Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low. As I said above, just saying "per WP:GEOLAND" is a really weak reason to keep an article because the guideline only says that such places are "typically considered notable" which is different from "always considered notable". As such, there should be additional supporting evidence that the article's topic would be considered typically notable. Lacking such evidence, we default back to the basic WP:NOTABILITY guideline that requires reliable sources, which the nominator argues that there is hardly any for the currently AfD. —seav (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND is an WP:OUTCOMES-based argument. It discusses the likelihood (based on past experience) that an article will be deleted. That doesn't mean that anomalies might exist where a named, recognised and populated area might be deleted if it duplicates something or is recognised but not "officially". GEOLAND represents WP:CONSENSUS from previous discussions. Such guidelines will never say "always" because such things are not inherently notable. But the community has determined that recognised, populated places are generally notable and so are typically kept. The argument that such consensus might be dismissed because it's not "always" would be the weaker argument. The "evidence" is that it is recognised and populated, that evidence "typically" being considered sufficient. Is there any suggestion any of these subjects are unrecognised or unpopulated? For what its worth, your suggestion that these should have been dealt with separately is (I think) spot on. The anomaly outside the "typical" is far more likely to be found that way. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up WP:OUTCOMES. Well, while GEOLAND might reflect that such places are typically considered notable in many previous discussions, if we narrow the set of discussions to those that specifically discuss notability of barangays, then as I already explained above, there is no such consensus that barangays are typically notable. Articles on barangays have been kept, merged, and deleted. So this is why I question the "typically" part when applied to barangays. I don't agree that simply invoking WP:GEOLAND is enough reason to keep a separate barangay article. —seav (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you're absolutely entitled to that view, as is the nominator. WP:GEOLAND is enough for me, but then I generally believe that pretty much all populated, officially recognised places should have articles here. Coverage of geography is (I believe) a core responsibility of an encyclopaedia. I'm from Australia and Wikipedia has coverage of almost every small suburb and every minor geographical feature. I can't see why our coverage of Filipino geography should be any less substantive. But I respect that others might disagree with that logic (which doesn't reflect on their views with regard to the Philippines generally) and so might form a different opinion here. If previous AFDs have concluded that such geographical features should be deleted, then I believe contrary to consensus in those instances (just as you may well do here). St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you think that all barangays, being legally-recognized and populated places, deserve their own articles, but as a person who grew up in the Philippines, I really cannot fathom how one can create an article that can eventually become featured on really tiny barangays like Barangay 86 in Pasay oder Barangay 112 in Caloocan. Any such article will only be filled with information that can all be placed in Wikidata anyway. And if WP:GEOLAND did not exist, there would be hardly any question that these tiny barangays are not notable for lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. —seav (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could say the same about a number of our special notability guidelines. I don't hold out much hope that they would each become featured articles (that'd be great, but I'm a realist) and some will be less valuable than others. But then there are a number of Australian 500-person micro-suburbs that we have articles for. Can't be any less valuable than those! St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: numbered barangays: I am open to merging these tiny villages (area-wise) with their original barrios or districts but that's it. All the rest of the barangays with proper names are big enough and stable enough to have their own articles. For example: Barangay 829 Zone 90 (Manila) would redirect to Paco, Manila (Paco being the original village before these mass partitions took place). And Barangay 86 in Pasay could be created under its original barrio of San Rafael, Pasay along with the other new barangays created between Taft Ave and Roxas Blvd north of Edsa and south of Arnaiz Ave. And Barangay 112 in Caloocan can be merged to Grace Park East. Fortunately, we don't have articles on these numbered barangays, and we will not encourage them.--02:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Good. At least you have admitted that not all barangays without question deserve their own articles and might be better merged into collective articles. But purely numeric barangays are not the only problem. We have barangays with proper names but suffixed with numbers too like in Bacoor where we have barangays like Panapaan 1 to Panapaan 8, and Talaba 1 to Talaba 7. I don't think these barangays deserve individual article and we can debate on whether the Talaba barangays can be merged into a "Talaba, Bacoor" article or just simply discussed under Bacoor itself. —seav (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing, our editors use their heads when creating such articles, without separating Anilao Proper East and West and North and South Forbes Park. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to list there's precedent in Category:Lists of barangays in Philippine cities and municipalities. Besides, it's much easier to add sources on a list versus individual stubs. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:GEOLAND and WP:FIVEPILLARS gazetteer. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:GEOLAND and other reasons stated above.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per above including wp:GEOLAND. --do ncr am 23:53, 16 January 2015 (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.