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)[reply]

Pulong Buhangin, Santa Maria

[edit]
AfDs for this article:


Pulong Buhangin, Santa Maria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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.
More