Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte

Add links
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 redirect to Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.

The discussion is whether individual barangays are villages or settlements that deserve separate articles, or if they are in most cases too small and insignificant to develop into full articles (this is where WP:GNG comes in). Standard practice (not policy) on Wikipedia has been to keep articles on villages and settlements, but not on individual neighborhoods unless there is something significant to write about them. Barangays do have separate local councils so they are not merely statistical units, but their significance and numerosity makes significance very local in nature. Barangays are usually quite small (average population is around 2000 individuals), although this is not by itself decisive (communes in France, all of which have an article, can have populations in the low hundreds).

There appears to be some variation in barangays. Some have significant coverage to write up a substantial article. For many others, this one included, the only content is basic demographic information, and a list of educational and religious institutions.

In making the editorial decision to make this a redirect it is for the following reasons:

  • A large majority of participants in this discussion oppose having a separate article.
  • The article lacks sourcing to develop anything beyond the skeleton and a directory of public services. (In comparison, communes in France typically have more sourcing that can be used to develop the article.)
  • The most active editors on Filipino topics have expressed concern that just maintaining and patrolling, let alone developing, large numbers of articles on unremarkable barangays is difficult.
  • For the sake of consistency, I am following the precedent set on the previous AFD on the individual barangay Tarusan.

Perhaps it might be advisable to expand the lists of barangays into tables that can contain basic information (such as population) but that is just a thought. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte[edit]

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

Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stubbish (and directory-like) article of a barangay. Such type of Philippines-related articles have been point of contention for the past decade, with latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. Consensus remains that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles.

For this barangay, it only contains one external link to the 2007 mid-decade census (outdated!), and contains basic info like statistics, barangay captain, and natural description like geographical location. But it lacks other encyclopedoc content. It does contain a list of educational institutions and religious buildings, but see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Worse it lacks reliable sources. Thus this should not benefit from WP:GEOLAND and must be nuked.

Note that if this and the other article about another barangay of the same province are nuked, the category Category:Barangays of Camarines Norte may be colaterally deleted as an empty category. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one does appear to be a separate and recognised settlement, so passes WP:GEOLAND. It's a village miles from the main population centre of the municipality and separated from other settlements by countryside. This would be the definition of a separate settlement anywhere else on the planet, so not to recognise it as one because it's in the Philippines makes no sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp: the consensus of Pinoy WP:Tambayan community has been clear. Barangays must be considered on case-to-case bases. I don't want another debate as that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. The recognized settlements here are the 1,634 municipal divisions (cities and municipalities or Philippine towns), as opposed to thousands of largely-obscure barangays. Unless in your context you treat the 1,634 cities and municipalities of the Philippines as equivalent to Chinese prefectures or U.S. counties! (since below basic provincial or state-level) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have already said, in the UK we treat every hamlet that is a recognised settlement as separate and have articles on them. They are all part of parishes, which are our lowest level of administrative unit, but they are still separate settlements. The same goes for any other country in the world (apart from, in your opinion, the Philippines). A settlement is a settlement, whether it is actually an administrative unit or not. Ironically, in the Philippines, these are actually administrative units of a sort, yet still you refuse to recognise them on Wikipedia. Which is, frankly, bizarre, and I do not understand your reasoning. It is clear that they meet the criteria of WP:GEOLAND, which is our main notability guideline on the subject. The problem is that "barangay" effectively has two meanings: a subdivision of an urban area and a separate village. They may be treated the same in the Philippines, but they are not the same in a Wikipedia context. The former are frequently not notable per WP:GEOLAND, but the latter are. You, however, seem to be assuming a blanket non-notability. GEOLAND, however, is quite clear on the matter: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. I see nothing that says except in the Philippines! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp: that comparison won't work here. England's 10,449 civil parishes are dwarfed by the 42,046 barangays of the Philippines. Some towns, like Adams, Ilocos Norte, only have a meager number of barangays that can be counted by hand. In three Metro Manila cities (Caloocan, Manila, and Pasay), barangays are named numerically. Like Barangay 1, Barangay 2, Barangay 3, and sometimes up to Barangay 468 or Barangay 678. It is impractical to create articles on every one of them, especially if majority of them do not have reliable, non-blog-type sources on their own. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly have not read what I just wrote about the difference between urban neighbourhoods and separate villages. And an English rural parish can have several separate villages and hamlets; each one is considered to be notable on Wikipedia if it has its own identity. The same applies in any other country in the world. WP:GEOLAND is the standard here. India, for instance, has far more villages than the Philippines does, yet AfD has found every one to be notable if it is considered to be a separate settlement (no, not administrative unit, but settlement). Why exactly do you consider the Philippines to be an exception to this? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp: if you contest the Tambayan consensus, feel free to submit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan to WP:Deletion review forum. But I still stand that barangays are only notable by case-to-case basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is an AfD for a completely different place not a case-by-case basis? And I still fail to understand why you think the Philippines should be an exception to the notability guideline which applies to the whole of the rest of the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Necrothesp: that's because barangays are located within settlements. In our country, the 1,634 municipal LGUs comprise the nation's settlements or populated places. Barangays are just mere subdivisions of these settlements. Unlike your Indian comparison: a sample from Anuppatti reveals this division level: India -> Tamil Nadu state -> Tiruppur District -> Anupatti village (excluding dìvisions with no government bodies). They have secondary level between provincial/state divisions and settlements, which are the districts. That is unlike our case, like for instance: Philippines -> Bulacan -> Malolos (city) or Pulilan (Philippine municipality or what other countries call towns), excluding administrative regions which have no real governing officials (except Bangsamoro of course) and legislative districts (which are not part of the administrative subdivision hierarchy of the country). We don't have administrative districts between provinces and cities/municipalities, as such cities/municipalities are the settlements here, whereas in India villages are considered as settlements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. A settlement does not just mean an administrative division. For example, the lowest level of administrative division in England is the parish. A parish may consist of several villages and hamlets. They are not administrative divisions. They have no councils. They have no "legal status". But they are still settlements (i.e. populated places with a name and an individual identity, just like barangays) and they still have articles on Wikipedia. This is also the case elsewhere in the world. There is absolutely no reason why the Philippines should be an exception. Just because the Philippines calls its villages barangays, makes them subdivisions of municipalities and does not legally distinguish between a barangay that is an urban neighbourhood and one that is a rural village does not mean the latter is not a settlement under the definition of WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: There's little to no benefit in keeping these articles here. Imagine having 42,000+ stubs with just the lead and an infobox. Barangays can be notable, but this one simply isn't. As far as I know, a subject/topic must satisfy the general notability guidelines of Wikipedia before passing WP:GEOLAND. Let me emphasise that the lead of WP:GEOLAND states that "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable". This one barely passes the GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If settlements meet WP:GEOLAND they have almost invariably been considered to be notable at AfD. This has generally been considered to be an exception from GNG. Per the second bullet point at the top of the page: Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable. I see nothing that says "unless they're in the Philippines!" -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: cities and municipalities (Philippine towns) are the recognized settlements here. Barangays are just mere divisions of them, but people usually associate themselves with their city or town (if not province), not barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're just going round in circles here. The salient point is that, for some reason, Filipino editors seem to think their country should be an exception to every other country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Just like what I've said below, with or without local consensus, most barangays do not meet WP:GNG. It can't be the other way around. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you're not understanding is that WP:GEOLAND is an SNG. Per WP:SNG, if something meets the criteria of an SNG it does not have to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: again per GEOLAND: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Take note the word "presumed". It is not written as "are absolutely notable". Plus barangays are only mere administrative subdivisions of 1,634 cities and towns which, I repeat, are the legally-recognized places here. Thus the redirect List of populated places in the Philippines redirects to List of cities and municipalities in the Philippines. Barangays are not real populated settlements, but just mere subdivisions of those populated places. In most of our maps (overview maps of the Philippines and regions), cities and municipalities are represented by dot or similar objects. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet on whether to keep, delete, redirect or disambiguate the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp's arguments. No one seems to be contesting that this place meets WP:GEOLAND as a populated recognized settlement. The issue is that local consensus in WP:Tambayan is trying to override the community wide notability guideline of WP:GEOLAND. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS explicitly says this is not allowed. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. If the community at Wikiproject Philippines wants the WP:GEOLAND notability guideline to be changed so that barangays do not meet the guideline, then WP:TALKFIRST to establish wider consensus. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwaiiplayer: if you are contesting, then try to submit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan and the recently-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurelio, San Jose at WP:Deletion review. Note that much of these articles have little to no reliable sources that are not supportive of inclusion as articles. Maintaining an outstanding 40,000+ articles of unnotable barangays leaves open opportunities for problems like vandalism, directory-like content, promotional content, and fictional etymologies. I went through a few of Indian village articles though (those pointed out by Necrothesp), and some of them are stubbish and unsourced articles, like Pedda Elikicherla and Jamthi Khurd. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwaiiplayer: With or without local consensus, most barangays do not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on previous outcomes (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurelio, San Jose) which demonstrate at least some broader community consensus, and a strong consensus that Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte does not meet even the most broad definition of basic notability, I'm changing my !vote to merge to Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Barangays. Ultimately an article for an encyclopedia needs encyclopedic content, and no one has provided evidence (nor can I find) that WP:SOURCESEXIST. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwaiiplayer: Note: A redirect to Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Barangays isn't plausible since two other municipalities in the same province have a barangay named "Santa Cruz". Is your merge !vote also a redirect one or is it similar to Howard the Duck's !vote above? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like Howard the Duck's !vote. If anything, multiple baraclays in the same province with the same name is a candidate for a DAB page (would be DABed at Santa Cruz (disambiguation), but if possible the relevant information from Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte should be included in Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Barangays, similar to Alcantara,_Cebu#Barangays. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the Philippines, this was a badly named article. Barangays aren't named "<barangayname>, <provincename>" just like this one. There are many ways to name barangay articles, but presumably, for this article, its "best" name would've been "Santa Cruz, Jose Panganiban". A person searching for a barangay named "Santa Cruz" in Camarines Norte won't search as "Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte"; presumably that person know where what municipality it is from. Strongly oppose making a dab page if that's needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really mindblowing that foreigners think they know better than Filipinos on how to classify places in the Philippines. It's like the Spaniards invading all over again. Filipinos don't even use the term "hamlets!" Nothing is going to be deleted. All of the information will be placed someplace else, except for elected government officials, which can be added. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte: The barangay article is simply a listing of schools and whatever there is. If we proceed with the argument that all barangays are notable since these are settlements, we will be stuck with all 897 barangays in Manila numbered from 1 to 905, not to mention the barangays in Pasay and Caloocan. Following the same logic, it would merit the creation of articles for sitios and puroks. The barangay article, itself, must be merged to its higher administrative division. HiwilmsTalk 03:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has already been pointed out ad infinitem, they are notable per WP:GEOLAND if they are clearly separate settlements (i.e. towns and villages), not simply subdivisions of larger towns. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Who told you they're separate from "larger towns"? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a settlement is self-contained and has miles of countryside between it and another settlement than it is a separate settlement. If you are incapable of understanding this then we are just going round in circles. Once again, you obviously believe that the Philippines should be an exception to a convention that applies to every other country in the world. Fine. I have no idea why, but if you want to believe something so odd then that's obviously your prerogative. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: You clearly don't understand how barangays work, do you? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I completely understand the situation. It's you who clearly doesn't understand the Wikipedia notability guideline and what a populated place is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: If that's the case, then why are you saying that they're separate from cities/municipalities? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: however, Barangay Santa Cruz is a subordinate of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte. It is not considered a village in our local government administration. Thus the recognized settlement goes to Jose Panganiban which is a town. Santa Cruz is just a mere division. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And settlements are intertwined with local government administration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're still not getting it. Never mind. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp is imposing the standard of foreigners to concepts native to the Philippines, then telling us Filipinos, "nope, you people and your government are idiots". If Apolinario Mabini was alive he would've stood up to this nonsense! Howard the Duck (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm suggesting the worldwide standards of Wikipedia should apply to the whole world and editors from one country should not for some bizarre reason decide it's an exception! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
!!!ALL HAIL MOTHER ENGLAND. ENGLISH STANDARDS APPLY TO THE PHILIPPINES!!! Somewhere, someone from Barangay Santa Cruz is asking "what's a hamlet"? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: You're not listening. No one is saying that they are an exemption. Barangays can be notable just like your hamlets or villages, but not all of them. Your beloved GEOLAND never said that if a settlement passes it, it passes GNG too. GEOLAND, being an SNG, is saying that "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable", therefore, a settlement must meet GNG first. WP:GNG is blood thirsty for WP:RS. Most of them don't pass WP:GNG because aside from listings on some government websites, there's really nothing else you can find about them. They are not separate settlements either. Your definition of a populated place does not apply to the Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not listening. If you look back over previous AfDs, you will find that almost every recognised populated place (not farms, railway stops, etc, but actual groups of dwellings) everywhere else in the world that has been sent to AfD has been kept. There is clear consensus that they should be. Arguing that barangays are not recognised populated places is just ridiculous. Of course they are. In fact, they have more legal recognition than many other settlements (e.g. British hamlets, which have no official status whatsoever, as I have already said). Those that are parts of an urban area are mostly not notable (I've already said this, so I don't know why it's continually brought up). However, those that are separate rural villages, as this one is, are (and no, I don't mean separate as in a separate municipality; I mean separate as in divided from other populated places by open countryside). Their administrative status is utterly irrelevant to the guideline. The fact they are part of another municipality is utterly irrelevant to the guideline. The only thing that matters is that they are recognised populated places. That means they meet the guideline's criteria. But, as I said, we're going round in circles. Your little group are not going to agree with me and I'm not going to agree with you. Let others contribute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're not deleting. We're just putting Wikidata like entries on another place. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: To add, we will literally have thousands of one-sentence articles if we create an article for every barangay in Manila, Pasay, and Caloocan, alone. For example, the article for my barangay here in Manila will only read as "Barangay 55 is a barangay in Tondo, Manila, Philippines." While there is an elementary school here, there's literally nothing except houses here. Meanwhile, the next barangay is just across the street. The same can be said with the majority of barangays, especially in Metro Manila. Notable exceptions are Alabang, Baclaran, and Fort Bonifacio which are major hubs. In the case of Manila, it is better to keep just the articles for its 16 old districts. HiwilmsTalk 14:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for this Wikidata entry Wikipedia article, I'd be okay with including even the barangay chairman in a list of barangays in its mother municipality. While barangay elections are supposedly every 3 years, they are as frequent as the quintennial census. The DILG has a list of barangay officials in their website. Nothing is going to be deleted! Howard the Duck (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really trying to write something about Barangay 666, Manila, the site of the largest papal mass in history, and some notable executions (before its establishment as one), but it's actually quite hard to pass WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, apparently, I forgot that foreigner Wikipedians here are better than the Philippine government's Department of the Interior and Local Government. Barangay 666 is not a separate village, but this one is. SORRY! Just ignore my dreams for 666. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there are a lot of settlements in western countries whose articles don't pass WP:GNG. I created one recently, Crudie. NemesisAT (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: @NemesisAT: so in your opinion, do 99% of 42,046 barangays in the Philippines (except Poblacion or downtown barangays) deserve their own articles? Are there any countries that have higher number of places below municipal-level settlements? Note that French communes are = Philippine cities and towns. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, any settlement in history, that's not contiguous to another settlement, is another "town" per WP:GEOLAND. (Is Taal Lake's Volcano Island a town? Yes, according to GEOLAND!) Ergo, our puroks and sitios, which are usually far away from the main town area, are separate settlements and are "towns". You'd notice this insistence from foreigners on calling Rio Tuba in Bataraza as a separate "town", despite local sources never calling as such, instead preferring to call it as a "community". Now, are these "towns" notable. GEOLAND says they are presumed to be notable. The presumption of notability then is connected to hamlets of England -- a form of OTHERBULLSHITEXISTS argument: if hamlets in England are notable, and such places in the Philippines are to be considered as hamlets if they were in England (WHO CARES WHAT THE LOCALS THINK? #BRITTANIARULESTHEWAVES!), then they are notable. Damned what the locals think. Damned what the government thinks. They're more reasonable than us... FOREIGNERS? LOL.Howard the Duck (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is English Wikipedia. There is generally considered to be a bias against the inclusion of topics from non-English speaking countries here, so I find this argument a bit odd. To answer your question @JWilz12345:, if a settlement is officially recognised, that it is separate from others (not a suburb), and we can verify that it exists, then yes I support it having a dedicated article here. NemesisAT (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WE
ARE
NOT
DELETING
ANYTHING.
We're just putting it in another place... well, for things that aren't already in other places in Wikipedia. That's what my !vote is... dunno with the others.
FWIW, the Philippines has more English speakers than grand old England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find the line of argument that says that "foreigners" shouldn't be commenting on any article about a place deeply shocking. What is your motivation, User:Howard the Duck, if it's not racism? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "foreigners shouldn't be commenting on any article about a place". It is foreigners knowing better than locals on what to do. If an Englishman tells me a hamlet is notable on an AFD about an English hamlet, that's fine with me. If a Filipino tells a foreigner "barangays are not notable", I suppose that Filipino knows better. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And where have you ever seen me (an Englishman, as it happens) say that a foreigner's view of the notability of an English hamlet is any less valid than that of an Englishman? I believe, and very much hope, that the answer is "never", and that also goes for any discussion about a place anywhere in the world. This is an international encyclopedia, and people's opinions count for just the same whatever their nationality. We apply the same standards to populated places everywhere, rather than make an exception because a few people out of the many millions who inhabit the Philippines refuse to abide by our policies and guidelines. You have written nothing to disabuse me of the thought that your comments are based on racism. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a foreigner, I have no idea how an English hamlet should be notable, at least on Wikipedia terms. Should I prance around every English hamlet AFD? Of course not. Filipinos have explained -- extensively, to non-Filipinos -- why barangays such as this are not notable. It's not they are basing their arguments on ignorance. It's a good idea to heed their advice. If you have found this racist, then please I humbly apologize. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Howard, there are two basic problems with your argument that if hamlets in England are notable, and such places in the Philippines are to be considered as hamlets if they were in England ... then they are notable. Damned what the locals think. Damned what the government thinks. First, to implement GEOLAND, you have to know what the "government thinks": presumptive Notability is for "officially recognized" settlements, so one policy-relevant consideration (as opposed to WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is, to what extent the settlement is recognized.

The second and perhaps more fundamental problem with your argument here is that you don't seem to understand what Notability means. To be notable, a topic has to meet certain criteria, and your argument that barangays are not subjectively notable is not a policy-compliant argument why they do not meet the relevant criteria for Notability, in this case those specified in GEOLAND. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, any settlement in history, that's not contiguous to another settlement, is another "town" per WP:GEOLAND this statement is funny but not actually true. The provision on question only applies to places that have been legally recognized at some point, not to any settlement in history. And legal recognition for very narrow purposes, such as Census Subdivisions, is specifically excluded from Notability under GEOLAND. But hahaha. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it has to be legally recognized. All barangays, even those in downtown urban areas, are "legally recognized". What the foreigners love though are barangays situated far away from the main settlement/town/city. That in their eyes -- as a legally recognized place -- makes it a town, no matter what the Philippine government says. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to ask Necrothesp about this: I don't see anything in GEOLAND that would grant presumptive Notability specifically to barangays situated far from the main settlement - Necrothesp mentioned the idea of something being "a separate settlement", but I don't see anything in GEOLAND or elsewhere that would make that a factor in Notability.
Anyway, Howard, why are we talking about towns now? You have just said that barangays are legally-recognized inhabited places, and that makes them presumptively Notable. I don't see how (or why) the Phillipine government would create a category of places that are "officially recognized" that would not be presumed Notable - unless they were single-purpose creations like Census Divisions, but you haven't made that argument. Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On another AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan, some foreigners mistake some self-sufficient barangays as "towns", probably to bolster their argument; this was also where I learned that "each settlement away from the main settlement is a separate settlement, and since barangays are legally recognized, these barangays pass GEOLAND, but not say, barangays in the downtown area". For me such self-sufficient barangays are probably notable already, like the one they're referring to at Rio Tuba. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone made a certain argument in another AfD doesn't make it compliant with WP policy and guidelines; that argument isn't. In the AfD you pointed to, the closer interpreted GEOLAND as presumptive of GNG Notability, which is flat wrong. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming good faith on the person who made such argument; it does seem reasonable (hahah). As for the closer, I don't really know what to do about that. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that you do anything about it at all, but both aspects are good examples of what I said about AfD in the Talk:GEOLAND discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Barangays are not independent places on their own. They are components that make up each of the settlements - the 1,634 true settlements (cities and towns). So there are 1,634 settlements in the Philippines. As such barangays are only notable on case-to-case bases, like Canlubang or Forbes Park, Makati. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I understand that this AfD nomination is based on Notability, and for that the relevant guideline is WP:GEOLAND. The guideline attributes Notability, not to independent places or "settlements", but to all officially recognized inhabited places. So if a barangay is officially recognized and inhabited, it is Notable; this isn't a matter where some might be notable and some not, according to policy. There might be other reasons to have articles for some barangays separately and redirect others to lists, but Notability doesn't offer such a reason. Newimpartial (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: even if there is only one source? (Let's assume, a source from Philippine Statistics Authority that lists 2020 census of Philippine cities and municipalities, and their barangays by region?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only having one source is not a problem in terms of GEOLAND, as long as it is a good source. In terms of your example, it makes a difference whether barangays are officially recognized for other purposes or only for the census, since some census-specific geographies are actually excluded from Notability under GEOLAND. Newimpartial (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: the functions and purposes of barangays are outlined in the article itself. It is just a click away. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As local government units, then, I can't imagine how either (1) only one source could exist or (2) anyone would argue that they don't meet WP Notability criteria. In fact, quite a bit of reliably sourced information should be available about each of them, though, granted, not all in English (but that doesn't matter). Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Non-English sources are virtually non-existent. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any newsblogs keeping track of local politics at the barangay level? That's...disconcerting. Newimpartial (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Yep, there are none. No one really cares to be honest. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: There is no reason to keep track of them. In Manila alone, there are 897 barangays. Even in cities and municipalities with less barangays, the focus is always on the municipality/city or provincial LGU. HiwilmsTalk 12:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hiwilms is right. Barangays are not as important as provinces and the "true settlements – the 1,634 cities and municipalities or Philippine towns. The cities and towns are already settlements of their own, it is just several of them have substantial territories (like Doña Remedios Trinidad and Calbayog) that span several barangays that may have their own mini plazas and mini sports facilities. But majority of local-level services are handled by the municipal-level LGUs (the cities and Philippine towns). Barangays just facilitate and assist the services conducted by 1,634 municipal-level LGUs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But none of this argument is compliant with WP policy. What matters is that they are inhabited and officially recognized, and that sources can be provided documenting those facts. How important, substantial or independent they are is just not relevant to questions of Notability, which was the basis of this AfD nom. Newimpartial (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: That's the problem, we have no sources aside from censuses and lists like this one. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the solution to permastubs, though. The solution to permastubs (if such this article topic turns out to be) is consolidation up to an appropriate unit (in this case, a unit of geography), and redirection to the appropriate article. While an AfD closer can decide to do this, there is no need to send such cases to AfD (nor does AfD typically handle them very well, IMO).
There is also no policy against articles that are dominated by census data; presented appropriately, such articles can actually be quite useful. Just an FYI. Newimpartial (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial expressing surprise on the lack of newsblogs. This is not jolly old England. Internet is bad. People are dirt poor. There aren't even local newspapers. Dear foreigners, please stop imposing your first world standards. Listen to the Filipinos here. It is not them arguing from the point of ignorance. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy is that inhabited, officially recognized places are Notable. That isn't a first world standard, and I dare say it would be considerably more ethnocentric to argue that only inhabited, officially recognized places in rich countries with good internet count as Notable. As far as ignorance goes, I have only pointed out that you in particular don't seem to understand the Wikipedia concept of Notability; I'm sure there are many other topics on which you are not ignorant at all, and I have certainly made no generalizations about Filipinos.
And Zambia, for example, has newsblogs, so yes, I am surprised if the Philippines does not. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed notable, that is. Again, this is the ammo of GEOLAND proponents here. It does not confer automatic notability! I for myself am not espousing deletion. I'm for merging these Wikidata entries Wikipedia articles to a list somewhere else.
NOTHING
IS
GOING
TO
BE
DELETED. (Do I have to do this multiple times because foreigners can't get it?!)
The Philippines has newsblogs. What it doesn't have are newsblogs for each 42000+ barangays. Or even for 50 barangays. I'd be interested if Bagong Silang has one. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, presumed Notable, just as a GNG pass is presumed notable. In both cases, this means "presumed to merit a unique article", but an article is never guaranteed because other factors also apply.
The thing is, I am not sure that I actually disagree with you about what the best treatment is for the barangays. But from a policy point of view, it is simply incorrect to argue that they "aren't Notable" (in fact there isn't any basis for deciding that anything presumed Notable under WP:N somehow isn't notable, because Notability itself is only the presumption that a topic should have an article).
An argument can certainly be made that the best treatment of barangays is to group them up to a higher level of geography and present stats on them in a table, for example, but the basis of that argument can't be that they are not Notable, because that isn't the way WP:N works. Newimpartial (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing all 42000 barangays are not notable, end of. I'm arguing this barangay is not notable. The article even is badly named, it is masquerading as a town when it isn't. This approach can lead to Imperial Manila bias (the best analogy is East Coast bias) but if there are sources, it won't be hard to make a GNG-compliant article that doesn't look like a Wikidata entry that hasn't substansially changed for almost a decade.... hey, like this article! Howard the Duck (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this is what I mean when I state politely that you don't understand what Notability means. If Barangays are officially-recogniced and populated, then they are (presumed) Notable, and they don't become any more Notable/deserving of an article if they also meet the GNG. GNG criteria simply don't apply to the Notability of places, and shouldn't really affect the decision of how best to organize information about places into articles. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, as you may know, people can twist the meaning of every page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace. I'm not saying you do, but as you can see with the discussion that I started re: WP:GNG vs WP:SNG, no one actually agrees on anything. You even disagreed on an AFD close (Well, that's not new!) What you understand about "Notability" is not the sole source of truth. Foreigners cite GEOLAND. Us Filipinos cite GNG. Something's got to give. Personally, there has been an evolution of positions.
Filipinos have barangays since there were people in the Philippines. Filipinos know what they are talking about when they tell you "This specific barangay is not notable. We can't make a proper article out of it. This article has zero WP:RS aside from the fact it exists, it has this land area, this many people, and these are the government officials." Is this barangay notable? GNG says no. GEOLAND says yes, but then again, every province, city, municipality and barangay does. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But no editor of any nationality - not even your esteemed self - can make a policy-based argument that a certain place is not Notable if they do not understand what WP Notability is: which you, apparently, do not. There have now been many very clear replies at WT:N specifying that the GNG criteria do not apply in certain areas where they are set aside by SNGs, and that GEOLAND represents one of these. Your attempt to argue that "this barangay is not notable because it doesn't meet GNG criteria" just isn't based on policy; this has nothing whatever to do with nationality, so I wish you would stop throwing that red herring around. It stinks. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Santa_Cruz,_Camarines_Norte&oldid=1040660023"