- 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. T. Canens ( talk) 23:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mayapa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep : Topic satisfies WP:GEOLAND. David.moreno72 11:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. We have plenty of articles on barangays so it’s pretty much established that all barangays are notable. Mccapra ( talk) 19:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Satisfied WP:GEOLAND. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A barangay is a populated, legally recognized place, and satisifies WP:GEOLAND for that reason. ---- Pontificalibus 05:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Geoland. And cos people live not in cities or municipalities, but in barangays where people more or less know each other and therefore are far more important than the wider generic city or municipality IMO-- RioHondo ( talk) 03:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - under WP:GEOLAND, articles must meet WP:GNG and this articles does not meet "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia ( talk) 16:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Satisfied WP:GEOLAND- - MA Javadi ( talk) 11:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Practically all of the keep !votes here point to
WP:GEOLAND as the only justification for this article's subject's notability. As a barangay, Mayapa falls under the "populated, legally recognized places" category. It says there that such places are
"typically presumed to be notable"
, but note that this is logically not the same as "always notable". To borrow a jargon from legal circles, we have " presumption of innocence unless proven guilty"; so we should treat such places as "presumed notable unless proven otherwise". And as a Filipino, I really would not consider most barangays to be notable especially if we are to go by WP:GNG. Aside from the Calamba City website and other government websites, I really could not find any good reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage about this barangay so I would recommend deleting or merging to the parent article. — seav ( talk) 13:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)- I'd like to add another point to my !vote.
WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, and Wikipedia guidelines are
"sets of best practices"
that"editors should attempt to follow"
, but"occasional exceptions may apply"
. My view is that WP:GEOLAND is painting with too broad brushstrokes and that it misses nuances peculiar to individual countries or regions. At least among Wikipedians from the Philippines, the question of whether all or most barangays are inherently notable has been repeatedly discussed since the early years of Wikipedia. Majority of Filipino Wikipedians that have participated in AfDs such as these actually think that most barangays are not notable and needs to meet WP:GNG in order to have a separate article. You can see this view in this somewhat outdated list of barangay AfDs where some barangay articles have been kept while other barangay articles have either been deleted or redirected to their parent city/municipality articles. — seav ( talk) 21:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to add another point to my !vote.
WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, and Wikipedia guidelines are
- Keep - WP:GEOLAND is a very strong presumption, and the exceptions are usually when a place is basically uninhabited, and has almost no identifiable features. GEOLAND does call for articles to fulfill GNG if the area is not legally recognized, but this is an official administrative subdivision, it has its own government officials, and a substantial (26,000+) population. Heck, this place is halfway to having one of its roads eligible for notability under some standards. MarginalCost ( talk) 20:59, 14 May 2019 (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.
- 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. T. Canens ( talk) 23:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mayapa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep : Topic satisfies WP:GEOLAND. David.moreno72 11:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. We have plenty of articles on barangays so it’s pretty much established that all barangays are notable. Mccapra ( talk) 19:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Satisfied WP:GEOLAND. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 19:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A barangay is a populated, legally recognized place, and satisifies WP:GEOLAND for that reason. ---- Pontificalibus 05:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Geoland. And cos people live not in cities or municipalities, but in barangays where people more or less know each other and therefore are far more important than the wider generic city or municipality IMO-- RioHondo ( talk) 03:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - under WP:GEOLAND, articles must meet WP:GNG and this articles does not meet "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia ( talk) 16:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Satisfied WP:GEOLAND- - MA Javadi ( talk) 11:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Practically all of the keep !votes here point to
WP:GEOLAND as the only justification for this article's subject's notability. As a barangay, Mayapa falls under the "populated, legally recognized places" category. It says there that such places are
"typically presumed to be notable"
, but note that this is logically not the same as "always notable". To borrow a jargon from legal circles, we have " presumption of innocence unless proven guilty"; so we should treat such places as "presumed notable unless proven otherwise". And as a Filipino, I really would not consider most barangays to be notable especially if we are to go by WP:GNG. Aside from the Calamba City website and other government websites, I really could not find any good reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage about this barangay so I would recommend deleting or merging to the parent article. — seav ( talk) 13:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)- I'd like to add another point to my !vote.
WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, and Wikipedia guidelines are
"sets of best practices"
that"editors should attempt to follow"
, but"occasional exceptions may apply"
. My view is that WP:GEOLAND is painting with too broad brushstrokes and that it misses nuances peculiar to individual countries or regions. At least among Wikipedians from the Philippines, the question of whether all or most barangays are inherently notable has been repeatedly discussed since the early years of Wikipedia. Majority of Filipino Wikipedians that have participated in AfDs such as these actually think that most barangays are not notable and needs to meet WP:GNG in order to have a separate article. You can see this view in this somewhat outdated list of barangay AfDs where some barangay articles have been kept while other barangay articles have either been deleted or redirected to their parent city/municipality articles. — seav ( talk) 21:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to add another point to my !vote.
WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, and Wikipedia guidelines are
- Keep - WP:GEOLAND is a very strong presumption, and the exceptions are usually when a place is basically uninhabited, and has almost no identifiable features. GEOLAND does call for articles to fulfill GNG if the area is not legally recognized, but this is an official administrative subdivision, it has its own government officials, and a substantial (26,000+) population. Heck, this place is halfway to having one of its roads eligible for notability under some standards. MarginalCost ( talk) 20:59, 14 May 2019 (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.