Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapangbato

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 no consensus MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that that doesn't preclude a merge, which is probably necessary. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sapangbato

Sapangbato (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 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep towns geography based subjects should have inherent notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Barangays are NOT towns. They're a part of a town. Also, see the latest barangay-related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandayan. Consensus a week ago was to delete. --Howard the Duck 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That means everything on earth is notable? LOL. --Howard the Duck 05:31, 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) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reindent: Wait a millisecond... you're basically saying we should apply standards done to other articles. I have yet to see an argument from you that this article should be kept on its own merits. --Howard the Duck 06:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Substabtial geography based subjects that are found on all maps are inherently notable, and that is the concensus.See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:47, 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) 09:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Do you have any arguments aside from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? How about arguments pertaining to this barangay per se? What makes this barangay notable? --Howard the Duck 09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment parts of this article also appear to be copyvios. Some parts of the information on "Chef Henry Pacheco Bonifacio" appear to be copied from here and here and probably other places, with some other stuff copied and then modified slightly, for example. Dreaded Walrus t c 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Taken care of. problematic potential copyvios were removed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, then edit and move to "Barangay Sapangbato, Angeles City". Although the population census of Pampanga does not include Angeles City (because Angeles City was counted as a single unit, without a breakdown of barangays as shown here, just click "Region III - Central Luzon"), the barangay possesses some level of notability such as:
  • being the location of Fort Stotsenburg, which eventually became Clark Air Base,
  • the birthplace of Allan Pineda Lindo (more popularly known as Apl d'Ap of the Black Eyed Peas),
  • a tourist destination that is being promoted by Department of Tourism's Pampanga Department,
  • the location of an award-winning digital film "Manoro",
  • a battle ground used by the US Army 37th Division against the Japanese Army in WWII,
  • part of Abacan river system, which was affected by lahar after the Mount Pinatubo eruption, and possibly many others. Starczamora (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Isn't the notability of this place passed on to Angeles City? For example, Apl.de.ap acknowledges his hometown as Angeles City. And several other places may have been devastated by Mount Pinatubo, too. --Howard the Duck 05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The two articles you have mentioned specifically mentioned "Sapangbato", and not just "Angeles City" in general. And, if you could remember, Apl.de.ap used "Sapangbato" as part of his lyrics for Bebot (Galing sa bayan ng Sapangbato/ Nagpunta ng L.A. at nagtrabaho). Starczamora (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
        • But you can make a case for every barangay that has been mentioned in songs, right? And Apl should have forgotten his local geography since "bayan" refers to the municipality/city.
        • Also, the barangay encompassing the beach on Leyte in which MacArthur landed won't have an article, either. That's more important than this (perhaps a lot of barangays had US-Japan skirmishes on WWII, they were all over the place. --Howard the Duck 13:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
          • That can be useful information. Besides, I'm smelling that some Filipino Wikipedians are only intent on keeping rich barangays like Bel-Air Village and Dasmariñas Village and consider barangays outside of Metro Manila as meaningless and unnotable. I mean, the data are already glaring and you still deny the barangay an article of its own? Systemic bias? Starczamora (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm formulating for a workaround on those "rich" barangays... I PRODded them too, you know. --Howard the Duck 02:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
              • But still, we cannot deny that some barangays are notable. I mean, at first I thought bot-creating 40,000 barangay articles would be crazy, but we can select which barangay article to write about--especially with enough level of notability that is exemplified in this subject. For instance, Barangay Forbes Park, Makati City has been referred by the local media as the richest barangay in the country, Barangay Parola Compound, Manila is the city's largest (and among the poorest), Barangay Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga is the town's main business hub (to the point everybody thought it is a separate town), or Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan which is a cluster of barangays named after actress Carmen Rosales. Starczamora (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
                • Actually, the workaround I'll be doing on some barangays isn't on the premise that they're notable because they are barangays but because they are neighborhoods. As stated in WT:PINOY, these "rich" barangays are not always coternimous with the neighborhoods they're famous for. --Howard the Duck 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, political units in all countries should have articles. --Oldak Quill 02:03, 10 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.