Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Ecleo, Sr., Dinagat Islands

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. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 05:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Ecleo, Sr., Dinagat Islands[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO hueman1 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cagdianao (and also all the other articles on individual barangays). The smallest administrative division does not have presumed notability, and this one appears to have no coverage apart from the expected weather, location, postcode, and government sources. (I note that there is a List of electoral wards in England by constituency, arranged by county, very few of which have individual articles. Perhaps there should be a List of barangays in the Philippines by city/municipality, arranged by province, rather than separate lists of barangays for each municipality.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @RebeccaGreen: According ot the Barangay article, there are 42,000 of them. That's an order of magnitude more than the English article. I'll be impressed if you can achieve that within the timeframe of this AfD and you'll have my undying admiration as a Wikipedia editor. SpinningSpark 10:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will have to admit upfront that I will not win your undying admiration, SpinningSpark. I had not read as far as the number of barangays! So listed by municipality or province would probably work better - unfortunately, I am not offering to create those lists, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Despite nom's unsupported claim to the contrary this handily passes NGEO. It's a populated legally recognized place. Per WP:GEOLAND it's notable. Perhaps this self-proclaimed deletionist ought to read the policies they cite before nominating any more articles for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't set too much store by the example of few bluelinks being in List of electoral wards in England by constituency. As a counter-example, the list in Wards of the City of London is 100% bluelink ... and they've all been developed into fairly respectable articles, so it can be done. SpinningSpark 23:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGEO as others have pointed out. Even the smallest administrative division is still a recognized division, and a recognized populated place. Smartyllama (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2018 (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.