Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masalipit

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 May 29.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 San Miguel, Bulacan. This appears from the discussion to be a potentially controversial close, so I shall explain the reasoning. Those requesting retention cite no policy or guideline to justify retention - instead the arguments rely on citing essays or asserting notability without justification or exposition of how exactly the general notability guideline is satisfied by the article. Finally, appeals to WP:BIAS, a Wikiproject are presumably to highlight the fact that if articles on the Western settlements exist, so should these. This is, unfortunately, a manifestation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and so was not weighted heavily. In the interests of WP:PRESERVE, I have chosen to redirect the article, and this should be maintained until such time as notability can be established. I think that explains everything, but I am happy to entertain civil questions to my talk page Fritzpoll (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Masalipit

Unremarkable place? Can't find any RS Chzz ► 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I want to keep this; there are other barangays, in the same province even, with articles. But I must confess that, while I can find sources attesting as to Masalipit's existence, I can find nothing notable about it. The most interesting source I found was one which discussed the interrogation of some would be Communist rebels (from 2005). But given the Philippines' status today, this is hardly notable. Somebody find something to save this with! Un school 02:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability and it's unlikely we can build up an article from this that isn't a mere gazeteer entry. --seav (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Miguel, Bulacan to prevent recreation until reliable sources are found to make a decent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep reliable sources are easily obtainable for the existence of this place. It may be unremarkable; but inhabited places are inherently notable. As for verification by reliable sources, by a quick google search I obtained one from the Philippines Census Department, and added it. Most of the article is unsourced, but it is a settlement with 2700 people, recognized as distinct by the national census department, like the various CDP's in the United States. Maybe Wikipedians don' think that a few thousand non-white people matter, but I think that they are better than that. A deletion would be WP:BIASed. (1) All settlements are inherently notable. (2) The existence of this one has been verified by WP:RS. This should be closed and the nominator slapped with a WP:TROUT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I and Lenticel, who voted for delete or redirect, are both Filipinos. Most Filipino Wikipedians (but not all) are of the opinion that almost all barangays (which Masalipit is) are not notable enough to have separate articles. We're actually quite perplexed with the "consensus" that any inhabited place is inherently notable. --seav (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may be perplexed by it, but it is well established and beyond the scope of any one place. See WP:OUTCOMES and WP:INHERENT. It also seems odd that while every little village or hamlet in Europe, Africa, South America, Asia, or unincorporated place in the US, any many neighborhoods in both are considered notable, that the barangays, which are defined by the government in the Philippines and even broken down by the census department are not so considered. We have articles on many barangays, no reason to delete this one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OUTCOMES is not set in stone and WP:INHERENT is just an essay. As long as there's a discussion on whether an item is notable of a separate article or not, then there can be reason to delete an article even if people say it has "inherent" notability. There have been plenty of barangay articles that have been deleted in the past so I would actually say that based on that precedent (just like WP:OUTCOMES also document precedents) there's no consensus that barangay articles don't deserve to be deleted. --seav (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crux of the statement immediately preceding this one relies on an actual establishment of notability for the said locality, and by extension, assumes that there is a geographic imbalance present. The problem with barangays is that unlike in the places that you cite, barangays are fifth-level geographic divisions, where notability becomes very hard to establish. Just because a barangay like Barangay San Pedro Cutud in the City of San Fernando has an article, it does not mean that notability extends to all articles. In a quick scan of the barangays category, a lot of those articles are unsourced and their notability not firmly established. Mere existence in this case (and in many other cases) is by no means a firm barometer of notability. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carlossuarez46. Government-defined administrative divisions that may include thousands of people are notable even though there may be millions of them in the world. Drawn Some (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the next larger administrative unit. I live in a Ward, with boundaries documented on city maps, and elect an alderman. But there are not articles on most such wards, or neighborhoods, if they are more encyclopedically represented by an article on the larger administrative unit. The fact that something is labelled does not automatically make it notable. The courtesy notability given to villages and hamlets, because of their being dots on some map, was because they are not part of a city. The entire article is unreferenced original research, except for the population and geographical coordinates.The "inherent notability of every inhabited (or formerly inhabited) place" is well satisfied by an article about the city or larger administrative unit of which it is a part. By Carlossuarez46's logic, I could demand an article about my Ward, the City block I live on, or the house or apartment building I live in, because all are "inhabited places," and are easily verified by reference to maps and publicly available property information in tax assessors' files. Someone in the country could demand an article on the square mile Section (United States land surveying) they live in, since it is inhabited and officially documented, but such an article would be redirected in general to the County (United States) article. We often delete or merge articles about small real estate developments, or "neighborhoods" lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, since the city they are in has an article. If this "barangay" has had substantial coverage in books,and magazines, then present the sourced information and write a great article. But do not simply fall back on "inherent notability." Edison (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Argumentum ad absurdum - the federal government of a large country keeps track of these 40,000 or so defined places, much like France keeps track of its communes and Germany of its municipalities, and the US of its cities and census-designated places. No one keeps track of your ward or block or house, or apartment building at the federal level to tell us how many people it has. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A barangay (Filipino: baranggay, [baraŋ'gaj]), also known by its former Spanish adopted name, the barrio, is the smallest administrative division in the Philippines and is the native Filipino term for a village, district or ward. You just said: No one keeps track of your ward or block or house. May I remind you that a barangay is a ward. ax (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - May I remind you that I said no one keeps track of User:Edison's ward, but the federal government of the Philippines DOES KEEP TRACK of its barangays - which are further subdivided as can been seen from the article. Or do you contend that the Philippine government is not a reliable source for its population data? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Who said that the "Philippine government is not a reliable source for its population data?" I read twice this page. No one said that the Philippine government is not a reliable source for its population data. May I remind you also that population of a barangay is not a criteria for notability. That is the argument. Do not mislead the argument. This has been on AFD since May 13. Have you searched for any reliable sources of notability of this barangay? ax (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you are overwhelmed by the population of this barangay, I wonder why the barangay of Pembo in Makati City does not have an article. The Barangay Pembo composed of 35,035 people while Masalipit only has 2,703 people. Both barangay does not assert notability. The Philippines Census Department is not a valid reference on this situation because the said department should have information to all barangays in the Philippines, and taking that into account, the said reference cannot be a basis of notability. ax (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. And the US census department has data on all manner of small places, like the 27 lucky souls who in 2000 called Pearsonville, California home - places that you'd no doubt love to see deleted, but good luck picking on the USA's places - rather let's turn our attention to faraway places with strange sounding names...right? Deletion of these faraway places with strange sounding names is purely a measure of WP:BIAS. If it's deleted it's off to WP:DRV where it'll be put to rights with the deleting admin getting a policy lesson. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You just contradicted yourself with "other crap exist" with "other crap does not exist". Just because Pearsonville has an article, it does not mean the Masalipit should also have one. ax (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moreover, I didn't start the "population game." I must quote from the above statements you have said on May 18, 2009 "...it is a settlement with 2700 people, recognized as distinct by the national census department..." Additionally, I can't think of a place here in the Philippines that is not recognized by our national census department. And what do you mean by: All settlements are inherently notable. Would you mind elaborating that sentence? ax (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but both barangays I said came from the Philippines, and when you compared the Pearsonville from Masalipit, it just means that you are not familiar with the word "barangay." Are you really serious when you compared Pearsonville from Masalipit. ax (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pearsonville has been dubbed the "Hubcap Capital of the World" because of resident Lucy Pearson's collection of hubcaps, which are rumored to number over 80,000." Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the Masalipit? I can't think of anything the Masalipit has to offer in this encyclopedia. ax (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barangays in the Philippines are generally not notable as a class to merit stand-alone articles. A barangay is basically a subdivision of a minor civil division and would roughly correspond to an electoral district or a neighborhood of a municipality. --Polaron | Talk 21:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:IHN "every geographic area used by the census bureau in the United States now had an article in Wikipedia whether or not they were the subject of "non-trivial coverage by multiple-sources", why this article about a government defined division should be treated differently? What bothers me is that the nominator could have open a dialogue or merge the article trying to preserve information: "If you are not familiar with a subject area, or it has meaning outside your experience base, discuss your concerns on the talk page or another appropriate forum before making an AfD nomination."(WP:BIAS) --J^mundo 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the relevant WikiProject on Philippine topics has decided to fold barangay information into the containing municipality article as a general rule. I'm sure some WikiProject members must be familiar with this place and would have argued for keeping the article if it were indeed significant. --Polaron | Talk 13:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thread why MOST of the barangays should be deleted, Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive15#Barangay_notability. We were not being biased, it just happens that we know what a barangay is. We know the definition of a barangay. We actually live in different barangays. And every primary students, be it may private or public schools, here in the Philippines had, in any other way, discussed on their classrooms what a barangay is. ax (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (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.