Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tumaga

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 No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumaga[edit]

Tumaga (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 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep geography based subjects should have inherent notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barangays aren't purely geography-based articles. --Howard the Duck 05:54, 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) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography:"Geological features named on maps, such as Willow Creek Pass (Montana), are verifiable and so acceptable".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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 02:49, 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) 09:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 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 only turns up one non-trivial reference but it's not a reliable source. --seav (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Seav and Howard.--Lenticel (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a barangay isn't like a borough in New York City, it's more like a precinct. The only notable precinct in New York is the 87th. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "Zamboanga City". It does not have a separate population census like Sapangbato, and its only notability is that it has a river named after it, houses the high school campus of Ateneo de Zamboanga and the City Agriculturist Office (it does have its own web page though). Starczamora (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, political units in all countries should have articles. --Oldak Quill 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 03:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. I'm usually an inclusionist for places but this is not a city, suburb or town and fails WP:RS. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gary King (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neigbourhoods in North American cities are routinely included. See Category:Neighbourhoods by country. It's not clear to me that a barangay is much different than a neighbourhood -- in fact it's probably more notable in that it has greater official recognition. Pburka (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they are only included if they are of major significance within the city. Quite a number, even from NYC, have been deleted. DGG (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming that its extent is certain. Often in Britain, the boundaries of a particular sururb are indequately defined, which makes it difficult to determine what should (and should not) be in the article. Unless the population is miniscule, there is no reason for not keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tumaga&oldid=1138755847"