Home • Search • Translate
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 Bataraza. At first glance, I though this might be a keep, but two things come to mind. GEOLAND doesn't guarantee acceptance by virtue of being a distinct populated area, it basically says that it is likely that the place will be able to meet WP:GNG. Evidence that is does pass this test is missing from the discussion. Second, to prepare for closing, I went to List of barangays of Metro Manila and discovered that most barangays are indeed not notable, and only those with significant coverage are, showing again that notability is not "granted", it must be demonstrated. I have a very liberal perspective of GEOLAND / GNG, but there is still a bar to be passed. The discussion regarding keeping the article was interesting, but not convincing. It may be notable some day, so I've chosen to redirect to Bataraza so the history isn't lost. If someone wants to redirect within that article, that is fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Tarusan

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. It has 4 references. Two are from Google Maps, which are not WP:RS, redtac-observatoire, which I cannot vouch if it is reliable or not, the reference used is not even about Tarusan but its mother town of Bataraza, and the Philippine Statistics Authority, while is WP:RS, it's their job to collect data about every barangay there is, and inclusion to their lists is not evidence of WP:N, plus it just has data if it's rural or urban and its population, neither of which are useful for discerning notability. Howard the Duck ( talk) 12:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: I think barangays should be exempted from WP:GEOLAND and their creation should be discouraged especially when their parent municipality's article is short. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:GEOLAND doesn't even guarantee notability. It just says "typically presumed to be notable". Any "Populated, legally recognized places" still has to prove via the article itself that it is notable. FWIW, SNG defers to GNG. Howard the Duck ( talk) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
A village of some five thousand souls is much larger than populated places that are typically kept. This village is distinct from other settlements in the area, the next blocks of houses on a map are several kilometers away (up and down the coastal road).-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
This is cute, but so what? How does that make this notable? That article doesn't demonstrate that the place is notable. The article currently fails WP:GNG. Howard the Duck ( talk) 14:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

There is also a tabular list of barangays targeted by AfDs, with listed outcomes of the discussions, found at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. I would want to give the article's creator a chance to assert the article's notability per WP:GNG (and not just WP:GEOLAND). But my view for more than a decade now is that most barangays in the Philippines are not notable because they wouldn't pass WP:GNG. Most of them will be just like this current barangay in question: a bare bones stub article about dry statistics like population and the like. — seav ( talk) 17:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Superastig: Are you suggesting that we should make a disambiguation page for three unnotable articles? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 05:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: That's not how barangays work. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
In assessing GEOLAND, I am not looking at whether this is a barangay or not but whether this is a separate settlement geographically.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Barangays are never separate from municipalities. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: What are talking about Tarusan being in between Bataraza and Rio Tuba? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Basic map reading - I am referring to the actual town of Bataraza (where Bataraza National High School, for instance is located, note that Tarusan National High School is named after Tarusan and likewise Rio Tuba National High School), not the municipality division (which is more like a county than a city). The concept of Philippine Barangays and municipalities (which are not exactly municipalities in the sense used elsewhere, but often like counties) is immaterial. What matters here is that Tarusan is a distinct village. Lest we get into map reading too much, this is how The Manila Times refers to it: "the remote village of Tarusan, also in Bataraza" [1]. It's a village, hence we as a gazette include it per GEOLAND.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
How these schools are named are immaterial. These could've been named as "Bataraza West National High School" or "Bataraza National High School Annex", and it still wouldn't made a difference. Barangays are not counties. I love it when Westerners apply their concepts to alien concepts. It's not like that at all. I dunno what counties are you speaking of, but U.S. counties are composed of towns and cities. A group of barangays are towns and cities. Tarusan supposedly relies on Bataraza poblacion (or another poblacion from another town if it's nearer to that one). That doesn't make it an independent settlement. 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Howard the Duck: Do you have anything to add here? I'm not very good at explaining things. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: Therein lies the difference. In the Philippines, Barangay 666 and Tarusan are legally the same. If we're going to how GEOLAND defines this, Barangay 666 is a "populated, legally recognized place", just as Tarusan is, and not just "a collection of buildings". The concept of "city wards" as different from "villages" in the Philippines does not exist. The actual town of Bataraza, the "populated, legally recognized place" includes Tarusan. If we're using the WP:GEOLAND definition, not the entirety of Tarusan will qualify, only the contiguous area where the people live, and this "contiguous area" is not a "populated, legally recognized place". And even if we'd do mental gymnastics on this one, it's still not a guarantee that the contiguous area in Tarusan where people live automatically qualifies for an article. Howard the Duck ( talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The legal peculiarities of Municipalities of the Philippines, which in rural areas are effectively a County, are not material in my mind. Anyone looking at a map sees that the towns of Bataraza and Rio Tuba (26 kms away, has its own airport) are distinct. The village of Tarusan is also a distinct settlement. They are all in the same county/municipality, but no geographer would see them as one settlement. Hence, The Manila Times refers to this as "the remote village of Tarusan".-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
When I think of barangays as "villages", The World Tonight (Philippine TV program) comes to my mind. The oldest existing newscast here (by ABS-CBN's Kapamilya Channel) always call barangays as "villages". Barangay captains as "village chiefs". JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 15:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
"Barangays" are usually translated as "villages" in English. I'm not surprised that Manila Times described it as that way, because it is.
Describing rural areas as "counties" is WP:OR. Rio Tuba is never described as a town. A mining community, yes, a barangay, yes, even a mining company, yes, but never a town. This is a classic example of Westerners imposing their whiteness to the Philippines. Give me a break. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix and Necrothesp: You guys need to understand that having small pockets of settlements in the Philippines does not necessarily correspond to them being separate from other pockets of settlements. These could all be in a single barangay. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The media calling barangays "villages" is ridiculous. Some gated communities (which are usually called subdivisions) can also be called villages. But does that make them a barangay? Do they elect their officials? No! — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
To make things more confusing, some gated communities are concurrent with a barangay. Or maybe the other way around. There are tons of possibilities! — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
But one thing's for sure, the Philippines isn't the US or the UK! — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The rich kids at Dasmarinas Village say hello. But for lack of a better English word, "village" is okay. I prefer "community". It being translated into English opens a can of worms that are lost in translation.
I love how this is being thought of. Are sitios and puroks notable? Are gated communities, because let's face it, these are "separate settlements" as they have really high walls and a militia with high powered firearms to keep out heathens, notable? Interesting. Again, I'd argue for WP:GNG. If your sitio, purok and rich kid's paradise can pass WP:GNG, be my guest. We don't want articles that are mere database entries. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Hamlet, village, town, city are geographical terms for human settlement, they are well defined. The peculiarities of modern administrative divisions (barangay et al) in rural area of the Philippines, is not as important as geography.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
We just call them "mga barangay"... — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
This is the same guy who calls "Rio Tuba" a "town". The "townsfolk of Rio Tuba" might disagree. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Are you still basing your argument on WP:GEOLAND, though, or on something else? Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Source: "the mining community of Rio Tuba" [2] (A community with a large builty up area, a sea port, and an air port). WP:GEOLAND and WP:5P1 as a gazetteer.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Yeah this is cute. Does that make it a town? I know requirements for cityhood in some states in the U.S. is pretty low, like 5,000 people is enough. We're in the Philippines, though. It's true that it is a "mining community", I don't think anyone has disputed that. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
(Also, no one's disputing that notability of Rio Tuba here, or elsewhere. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)) reply
@ Howard the Duck: just sharing... Parker, Pennsylvania, the smallest city by population in the state, has a population of smaller than that of Batanes' Uyugan (and it is a shrinking city too). JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix and Howard the Duck: think the best comparison is on Russia's so-called "selos". A selo is a type of rural localities there. For Chukotka alone (an autonomous okrug in the Russian Far East), there are 57 rural localities as of 2002 census, but only 41 have their own enwiki articles (like Anyuysk which appears on various Philippine-made chart-type world maps available in many bookstores and bookshops here). So even in other countries there is strict adherence to notability. BTW, I see the article Meillonnas as lacking sufficient sources. I randomly selected this commune out of dozens of communes in Ain department of France. Personally I find Meillonnas as a "skeletal article". JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
One unique thing about Philippine barangays (and actually for anything related to the Philippines) is that all of the information you can find is in English. Just make a database-like entry, and boom! It qualfies for WP:GEOLAND! Doesn't the Cebuano Wikipedia have database-like articles about all of the French communes? It's terrible. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Chukotka settlments includes Apapelgino (population 5) and Krasneno (population 63). There are dozens of Russian settlement articles with a population of less than 10! (e.g. Chayygda (population 4), Chengere (population 0), Chiryapchi (population 8), ...). I can assure many of these exist only due to GEOLAND, being non-descript outside of census and adminstrative data. Tarusan has 4,926 people.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Right. If we're going to WP:GEOLAND where it has to be "Populated, legally recognized places", and you're arguing it only applies with the actual "settlement", which doesn't always correspond to the barangay. The thing is, the actual contiguous area of settlement is not "legally recognized", only the entire barangay is (I assume the 45 sq. km. of the barangay is not 100% made up of the "settlement", there can be mountains or inhabitable area) . You can even use WP:GEOLAND argument for that, if that's the case, because the actual area settlement per se is not "legally recognized", only the entire barangay is. But you aren't arguing this for the "entire barangay", just for the "settlement". Howard the Duck ( talk) 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
City limits (or village limits) can extend well past the built up areas. For instance, Valsot (population 854) has an area of 158 sqr km of which "32.7% is used for agricultural purposes, while 26.5% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 0.7% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (40.1%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains)". Erstfeld (population 3,787) has 59.2 sqr km "11.7% is used for agricultural purposes, while 29.2% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 2.8% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (56.2%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains)". Haslen, Glarus (population 999) has 15.8 sqr km: "42.9% is used for agricultural purposes, while 45.2% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 3.3% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (8.6%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains).".-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: but not all Russian selos (let's say Russian rural barangays) have their own articles. Again, 41 out of 57 Chukotka selos have their articles on enwiki. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Only because they haven't been created yet. If someone were to create them, they'd pass AfD.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ HueMan1: Which is not what's being argued. What is being argued is that a defined, legally recognised settlement (that is, a settlement that is clearly separated from another settlement and has its own identity) is held to be notable in the rest of the world, so the Philippines should be no exception. A handful of houses that may be given a name locally but which are not legally recognised as a separate settlement do not fall into this category. A sub-division of an urban area does not necessarily fall into this category. The settlement that we are debating here clearly does. It is clearly what in much of the rest of the world would be referred to as a village. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2021 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tarusan&oldid=1021013051"
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 Bataraza. At first glance, I though this might be a keep, but two things come to mind. GEOLAND doesn't guarantee acceptance by virtue of being a distinct populated area, it basically says that it is likely that the place will be able to meet WP:GNG. Evidence that is does pass this test is missing from the discussion. Second, to prepare for closing, I went to List of barangays of Metro Manila and discovered that most barangays are indeed not notable, and only those with significant coverage are, showing again that notability is not "granted", it must be demonstrated. I have a very liberal perspective of GEOLAND / GNG, but there is still a bar to be passed. The discussion regarding keeping the article was interesting, but not convincing. It may be notable some day, so I've chosen to redirect to Bataraza so the history isn't lost. If someone wants to redirect within that article, that is fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Tarusan

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. It has 4 references. Two are from Google Maps, which are not WP:RS, redtac-observatoire, which I cannot vouch if it is reliable or not, the reference used is not even about Tarusan but its mother town of Bataraza, and the Philippine Statistics Authority, while is WP:RS, it's their job to collect data about every barangay there is, and inclusion to their lists is not evidence of WP:N, plus it just has data if it's rural or urban and its population, neither of which are useful for discerning notability. Howard the Duck ( talk) 12:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: I think barangays should be exempted from WP:GEOLAND and their creation should be discouraged especially when their parent municipality's article is short. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 13:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:GEOLAND doesn't even guarantee notability. It just says "typically presumed to be notable". Any "Populated, legally recognized places" still has to prove via the article itself that it is notable. FWIW, SNG defers to GNG. Howard the Duck ( talk) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
A village of some five thousand souls is much larger than populated places that are typically kept. This village is distinct from other settlements in the area, the next blocks of houses on a map are several kilometers away (up and down the coastal road).-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
This is cute, but so what? How does that make this notable? That article doesn't demonstrate that the place is notable. The article currently fails WP:GNG. Howard the Duck ( talk) 14:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

There is also a tabular list of barangays targeted by AfDs, with listed outcomes of the discussions, found at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete. I would want to give the article's creator a chance to assert the article's notability per WP:GNG (and not just WP:GEOLAND). But my view for more than a decade now is that most barangays in the Philippines are not notable because they wouldn't pass WP:GNG. Most of them will be just like this current barangay in question: a bare bones stub article about dry statistics like population and the like. — seav ( talk) 17:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Superastig: Are you suggesting that we should make a disambiguation page for three unnotable articles? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 05:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: That's not how barangays work. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
In assessing GEOLAND, I am not looking at whether this is a barangay or not but whether this is a separate settlement geographically.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Barangays are never separate from municipalities. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: What are talking about Tarusan being in between Bataraza and Rio Tuba? — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Basic map reading - I am referring to the actual town of Bataraza (where Bataraza National High School, for instance is located, note that Tarusan National High School is named after Tarusan and likewise Rio Tuba National High School), not the municipality division (which is more like a county than a city). The concept of Philippine Barangays and municipalities (which are not exactly municipalities in the sense used elsewhere, but often like counties) is immaterial. What matters here is that Tarusan is a distinct village. Lest we get into map reading too much, this is how The Manila Times refers to it: "the remote village of Tarusan, also in Bataraza" [1]. It's a village, hence we as a gazette include it per GEOLAND.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
How these schools are named are immaterial. These could've been named as "Bataraza West National High School" or "Bataraza National High School Annex", and it still wouldn't made a difference. Barangays are not counties. I love it when Westerners apply their concepts to alien concepts. It's not like that at all. I dunno what counties are you speaking of, but U.S. counties are composed of towns and cities. A group of barangays are towns and cities. Tarusan supposedly relies on Bataraza poblacion (or another poblacion from another town if it's nearer to that one). That doesn't make it an independent settlement. 15:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Howard the Duck: Do you have anything to add here? I'm not very good at explaining things. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 14:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: Therein lies the difference. In the Philippines, Barangay 666 and Tarusan are legally the same. If we're going to how GEOLAND defines this, Barangay 666 is a "populated, legally recognized place", just as Tarusan is, and not just "a collection of buildings". The concept of "city wards" as different from "villages" in the Philippines does not exist. The actual town of Bataraza, the "populated, legally recognized place" includes Tarusan. If we're using the WP:GEOLAND definition, not the entirety of Tarusan will qualify, only the contiguous area where the people live, and this "contiguous area" is not a "populated, legally recognized place". And even if we'd do mental gymnastics on this one, it's still not a guarantee that the contiguous area in Tarusan where people live automatically qualifies for an article. Howard the Duck ( talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The legal peculiarities of Municipalities of the Philippines, which in rural areas are effectively a County, are not material in my mind. Anyone looking at a map sees that the towns of Bataraza and Rio Tuba (26 kms away, has its own airport) are distinct. The village of Tarusan is also a distinct settlement. They are all in the same county/municipality, but no geographer would see them as one settlement. Hence, The Manila Times refers to this as "the remote village of Tarusan".-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
When I think of barangays as "villages", The World Tonight (Philippine TV program) comes to my mind. The oldest existing newscast here (by ABS-CBN's Kapamilya Channel) always call barangays as "villages". Barangay captains as "village chiefs". JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 15:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
"Barangays" are usually translated as "villages" in English. I'm not surprised that Manila Times described it as that way, because it is.
Describing rural areas as "counties" is WP:OR. Rio Tuba is never described as a town. A mining community, yes, a barangay, yes, even a mining company, yes, but never a town. This is a classic example of Westerners imposing their whiteness to the Philippines. Give me a break. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix and Necrothesp: You guys need to understand that having small pockets of settlements in the Philippines does not necessarily correspond to them being separate from other pockets of settlements. These could all be in a single barangay. — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The media calling barangays "villages" is ridiculous. Some gated communities (which are usually called subdivisions) can also be called villages. But does that make them a barangay? Do they elect their officials? No! — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
To make things more confusing, some gated communities are concurrent with a barangay. Or maybe the other way around. There are tons of possibilities! — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
But one thing's for sure, the Philippines isn't the US or the UK! — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The rich kids at Dasmarinas Village say hello. But for lack of a better English word, "village" is okay. I prefer "community". It being translated into English opens a can of worms that are lost in translation.
I love how this is being thought of. Are sitios and puroks notable? Are gated communities, because let's face it, these are "separate settlements" as they have really high walls and a militia with high powered firearms to keep out heathens, notable? Interesting. Again, I'd argue for WP:GNG. If your sitio, purok and rich kid's paradise can pass WP:GNG, be my guest. We don't want articles that are mere database entries. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Hamlet, village, town, city are geographical terms for human settlement, they are well defined. The peculiarities of modern administrative divisions (barangay et al) in rural area of the Philippines, is not as important as geography.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
We just call them "mga barangay"... — hueman1 ( talk • contributions) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
This is the same guy who calls "Rio Tuba" a "town". The "townsfolk of Rio Tuba" might disagree. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Are you still basing your argument on WP:GEOLAND, though, or on something else? Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Source: "the mining community of Rio Tuba" [2] (A community with a large builty up area, a sea port, and an air port). WP:GEOLAND and WP:5P1 as a gazetteer.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Yeah this is cute. Does that make it a town? I know requirements for cityhood in some states in the U.S. is pretty low, like 5,000 people is enough. We're in the Philippines, though. It's true that it is a "mining community", I don't think anyone has disputed that. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
(Also, no one's disputing that notability of Rio Tuba here, or elsewhere. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)) reply
@ Howard the Duck: just sharing... Parker, Pennsylvania, the smallest city by population in the state, has a population of smaller than that of Batanes' Uyugan (and it is a shrinking city too). JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix and Howard the Duck: think the best comparison is on Russia's so-called "selos". A selo is a type of rural localities there. For Chukotka alone (an autonomous okrug in the Russian Far East), there are 57 rural localities as of 2002 census, but only 41 have their own enwiki articles (like Anyuysk which appears on various Philippine-made chart-type world maps available in many bookstores and bookshops here). So even in other countries there is strict adherence to notability. BTW, I see the article Meillonnas as lacking sufficient sources. I randomly selected this commune out of dozens of communes in Ain department of France. Personally I find Meillonnas as a "skeletal article". JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
One unique thing about Philippine barangays (and actually for anything related to the Philippines) is that all of the information you can find is in English. Just make a database-like entry, and boom! It qualfies for WP:GEOLAND! Doesn't the Cebuano Wikipedia have database-like articles about all of the French communes? It's terrible. Howard the Duck ( talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Chukotka settlments includes Apapelgino (population 5) and Krasneno (population 63). There are dozens of Russian settlement articles with a population of less than 10! (e.g. Chayygda (population 4), Chengere (population 0), Chiryapchi (population 8), ...). I can assure many of these exist only due to GEOLAND, being non-descript outside of census and adminstrative data. Tarusan has 4,926 people.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Right. If we're going to WP:GEOLAND where it has to be "Populated, legally recognized places", and you're arguing it only applies with the actual "settlement", which doesn't always correspond to the barangay. The thing is, the actual contiguous area of settlement is not "legally recognized", only the entire barangay is (I assume the 45 sq. km. of the barangay is not 100% made up of the "settlement", there can be mountains or inhabitable area) . You can even use WP:GEOLAND argument for that, if that's the case, because the actual area settlement per se is not "legally recognized", only the entire barangay is. But you aren't arguing this for the "entire barangay", just for the "settlement". Howard the Duck ( talk) 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
City limits (or village limits) can extend well past the built up areas. For instance, Valsot (population 854) has an area of 158 sqr km of which "32.7% is used for agricultural purposes, while 26.5% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 0.7% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (40.1%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains)". Erstfeld (population 3,787) has 59.2 sqr km "11.7% is used for agricultural purposes, while 29.2% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 2.8% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (56.2%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains)". Haslen, Glarus (population 999) has 15.8 sqr km: "42.9% is used for agricultural purposes, while 45.2% is forested. Of the rest of the land, 3.3% is settled (buildings or roads) and the remainder (8.6%) is non-productive (rivers, glaciers or mountains).".-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Eostrix: but not all Russian selos (let's say Russian rural barangays) have their own articles. Again, 41 out of 57 Chukotka selos have their articles on enwiki. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 16:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Only because they haven't been created yet. If someone were to create them, they'd pass AfD.-- Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ HueMan1: Which is not what's being argued. What is being argued is that a defined, legally recognised settlement (that is, a settlement that is clearly separated from another settlement and has its own identity) is held to be notable in the rest of the world, so the Philippines should be no exception. A handful of houses that may be given a name locally but which are not legally recognised as a separate settlement do not fall into this category. A sub-division of an urban area does not necessarily fall into this category. The settlement that we are debating here clearly does. It is clearly what in much of the rest of the world would be referred to as a village. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2021 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tarusan&oldid=1021013051"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE