Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulong Buhangin, Santa Maria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Any further renaming or merging discussions should be held at the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pulong Buhangin, Santa Maria

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria


Pulong Buhangin, Santa Maria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Per nom, this is non-notable. From Barangay: "Historically, a barangay is a relatively small community of around 50 to 100 families." From the municipality article (Santa Maria, Bulacan), this is the only one of 24 barangays to have a page. Per (an admittedly microcosm of) WP:OSE, none of these pages meet notability standards unless there's something of particular note or import in this particular one, which the article in question does not assert. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salangbato, Philippines on why I think any political unit is a valid topic. Also, this one is large, a population over 15000 is a large community and virtually a town in itself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - SJ does have a point, and as I think about my reasoning a second time, I am inclined to remember something someone wrote to me once when I asked about geographic features... she said that, in her experience, virtually every geographic feature is "notable enough". Well, when you can have non-towns and barely-populated areas such as Moolack Beach with a page, why couldn't a sub-municipality as well? I'm not sold on the local government unit having free reign in some sort of "inherent notability" paradigm, but I can see where this has a notability simply for being a populated, geographically-identifiable place. Hence the vote change. I stand by the comments above, though, and feel that WP:OSE could be used to argue in both directions on this one and thus it is not an adequate argument for either. Status Quo is always to err on the side of keep, should no consensus or borderline policy be met. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom or Merge to Santa Maria, Bulacan since people seem to think 15,000 as a large enough settlement (my school's pop'n is even large than that).--Lenticel (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to Santa Maria, Bulacan. Almost all barangays in the Philippines are not notable enough in themselves to merit individual articles in Wikipedia and there is a problem of getting enough reliable sources to create a full-fledged article. A simple Google search does not turn up any non-trivial reliable sources that refer to this barangay. --seav (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep political units are inherently notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. There comes a point when some geographical unit is too small or too trivial that it doesn't deserve its own article and should instead be aggregated elsewhere. A blanket statement like "X's have inherent notability" is not a good argument in itself. You have to back it up with more substantial arguments. --seav (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Barangays aren't just purely geographical areas. They are political units, made up of people. Willow Creek Pass (Montana) is a landform, barangays, not really. --Howard the Duck 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply to PS: Because, as a Filipino, I know what a barangay really is and they're not comparable to similarly sized communities elsewhere in the planet. You should know the context where these communities are applied at. You may also want to read the comment below: --Howard the Duck 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You see, Howard, I'm really inclined to agree with deletion, but the "they are too small" argument doesn't do it for me. We have articles on geographic-type places with populations of 12 (link was above). If this is deleted, that's fine. I'm not entirely convinced either way, but the default has to be to keep. That's all. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • After reading unincorporated area, it is a community that is not a part of any municipality. Ergo, if you'd compare municipality and unincorporated area, they have the same rank, the only differemce is that unincorporated area isn't incorporated. Now following the political divisions in the U.S., it'll be state->county/parishes->city/municipality/unincorporated area, a third-level subdivision. In the Philippines, it's regions->provinces/some cities->most cities/municipalities-> barangays, a fourth-level subdivision. Ergo, it is not correct to compare unincorporated areas and barangays by basis of political power, let alone context. --Howard the Duck 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that Common Outcomes is not a guideline much less policy. It just documents what's been the result of many AfD and is not policy. So appealing to it is also not a convincing argument in itself. So it would be best if you argue about saving this article on the subject's merits. I have plainly stated my reasons being that there can be no reliable sources about these barangays from which to source a full article about it. Note that I haven't said that there shouldn't be any mention about these barangays in Wikipedia, just that barangays don't deserve individual articles. I should know, I'm Filipino.--seav (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2008 (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.