Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binahian


 * 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 per a minor WP:HEY job and the nominator being cool with the new version. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Binahian

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Originally proposed for deletion and deleted, but the author contested the prod and thus it was undeleted. Really, this article is horrible, beyond salvage. It is hardly even an article, more like someone's personal blog post. It is full of personal notes by the author, written in first-person voice, and it blatantly admits it. Very few, if any, parts have any sources. The author even made a talk page comment asking other people not to edit the article. The author must think Wikipedia is his/her personal blog. DELETE. J I P &#124; Talk 05:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Recreate as a stub (or delete and recreate as a stub). Villages (or barangays) are notable, but this one is an extremely poorly written advertisement and possibly filled with tons of copyright violations . I support keeping the topic, but scrapping the content. The entry isn't primarily about the town, but about an author living in that town.--hkr Laozi speak  06:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagging it for speedy deletion. There might be some copyright violations involved if kept, it's better to delete it, recreate it and start from scratch. --hkr  Laozi speak  07:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete.  (See below) I have declined speedies for advertising (not really) and copyvio (no source cited, I think the poetry is likely original composition, i.e. OR) While a stub on the village might be possible, this is so far from being an encyclopedia article - WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE, inappropriate tone - that I think it would be better to delete and let someone else start from scratch. JohnCD (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it sounded like a tourist brochure-ish like ad, but I agree, that's not considered traditional or obvious advertising as required by policy, so I understand the decline. I'll volunteer to create the article if no one else decides to after (if) it gets deleted. As of now, in this state, there's nothing rescuable.--hkr Laozi speak  09:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete The first part appears to be a copyvio of http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Binahian and the long poem-type bit of http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Binahian::sub::Historya_Kan_Barangay and the rest appears to be in there too . Apart from this, it is blatantly promotional and non-encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep following reconstruction. My congratulations to those involved. Peridon (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about that. Given how the servinghistory site duplicates the article's layout down to the details, and the author of the article created it bit by bit, not in large chunks, I think it's more likely that the servinghistory site copied the material from Wikipedia instead of the other way around. That happens quite a lot. I remember one instance where an external site translated the article World Bodypainting Festival, that I wrote, into Spanish, following the original English text exactly. That wouldn't have been much of a problem had they cited Wikipedia as a source, but guess what? They didn't mention Wikipedia at all. I sent them a couple of e-mails but never got a reply. J I P  &#124; Talk 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, looking at dates. They don't cite Wikipedia, so far as I can see. (Aren't they in violation of something if they don't?) The whole ghastly thing screams 'BROCHURE!!' at me, though. Peridon (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They do cite Wikipedia. There's a tiny little wee bit of text at the bottom, in next-to-microscopic font, saying "Some data may have been copied from the Wikipedia article about Binahian". J I P  &#124; Talk 13:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Some"? The whole thing... And divided up nicely into accessible pages with an index. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like this servinghistory site is actively copying content from Wikipedia. I edited the article Binahian less than an hour ago, changing "the language spoken here" to "the language spoken in Binahian", and the change already shows up on the servinghistory page linked above. J I P  &#124; Talk 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - please don't bite the newbies. This author has been editing since 2007, but almost entirely on this article; clearly she has the wrong idea of what Wikipedia is about, but however inappropriate the article we should not be using words like "horrible" and "ghastly" about a good-faith contribution, particularly as she has been developing it for over two years with no comment or guidance, apart from file source problem notices, until now. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Being naturally cynical, I'm afraid that despite WP:AGF I still regard this as promotional - especially with the amount of places this text and gallery can be found. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I feel sorry for the author but I do not see that there is anything about this that could be salvaged. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stub it, but keep it. Per se notable topic, full of content that no longer meets Wikipedia standards,  but as far as I can see the copyvio concerns haven't been substantiated and the photo links (for those photos which have now been properly licensed), at least, may be useful in creating a more appropriate article.  And I agree with JohnCD about not "biting"--the article seems to have been written in good faith. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yuck! That's not a Wikipedia article, that's a travel brochure. -- NINTENDUDE 64 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - It appears that substantial cleanup work has begun on this article... but a lot of work is still needed. -- NINTENDUDE 64 18:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep An article being abominably written is not a reason for deletion. As a real place, the subject is inherently notable. The article does need to be heavily edited. I did a bit of that earlier, but the article still needs a lot of work. Edward321 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a named settlement. As for the quality of the article, that's an editting issue.-- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per our long-standing consensus to allow articles on verifiable settlements. Any promotional content can easily be removed by editing, whether or not the original author of the article likes it, but the lead section as things stand is perfectly acceptable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both User:Edward321 and I have tried to substantially trim down User:Nyleve02's excessively misguided contributions, leaving just the bare facts and removing all the personal commentary. The article has shrunk down to about one-sixth of its size. The editing is not yet complete, but it's pretty close. If the current version is acceptable, and User:Nyleve02 has learned his/her lesson and will not add personal commentary again, the article should probably be kept. The only question that remains is what to do with the heaps of images that User:Nyleve02 uploaded. Not anywhere near all of them are usable on any article on Wikipedia. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The original author's behaviour has no bearing on whether this article should be kept or deleted, as we have other mechanisms, such as blocking and protection, to handle such issues. Images need to be dealt with separately at WP:FFD (or at Commons if they are uploaded there) as this discussion is only about the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, based on the work that User:Edward321 and I did, the entire nomination should perhaps be withdrawn. The only problem I've ever had with the article was that it was full of personal commentary. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep rescued version. I thought originally that this was a case of WP:TNT, but based on the excellent rescue work I am happy to keep it. Main problem now is lack of sources. I am pleased to see that the original author's work is not lost - she has posted it at a more suitable place: http://nyleve02.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/binahian/. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per wp:v: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Jeandré, 2010-10-29t09:02z
 * Comment - Do you doubt its actual existence? Because tagging it for references would be the appropriate thing to do if there are none currently to satisfy verifiability.  Note that this census from 1916 would support the fact that this is a populated named settlement. -- Whpq (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but I don't think it's an encyclopedically notable subject. I think the burden of proof lies with the inclusionists to add refs to the article, and if even they don't think the subject is notable enough to put in a ref, then to have the article deleted. I don't think having 451 people in 1916 makes it encyclopedically notable, so I won't put that reference in the article, tho if someone else does, a keep by the closing admin will be following WP's rules (and making it harder to patrol for libel). -- Jeandré, 2010-10-29t15:26z
 * The 1916 census information happens to the be an item that I was able to find online. References do not have to be online.  -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (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.