Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mabini-Borja, Dinagat Islands


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Striker force Talk 14:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Mabini-Borja, Dinagat Islands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This barangay (village) in the Dinagat Islands does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The sources on the article are Google maps and Philippines Places which do not provide much information. Other web sources just mention the baarangay by name. Jollibinay (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Question Does coverage exist in the other local languages? 165.91.13.29 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE as an officially recognised populated place. Existence verified in multiple sources . SpinningSpark 22:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not about its existence, but rather its notability. It appears on maps and censuses, but that's it.Jollibinay (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * ...which means that at the very least we could expand the page by adding population information and map co-ordinates. We also have a source on flood risk.  From WP:GEOLAND; "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."  From WP:PRESERVE; "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia."  So in guidelines and policy we should not delete this page.  At the very worst it would be merge and redirect, but I would not support even that, at least not until we have heard from someone with access to a regional newspaper archive. There are quitee a few results coming up on HighBeam that look promising from the snippets but only the opening para is accessible e.g. bridge openingminingstorm flooding. SpinningSpark 16:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE. It clearly exists, it's clearly a legally recognized populated place. In this case, that's enough. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND, as a Barangay, meets criteria. MB 17:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect and all other barangay pages of Cagdianao, Dinagat Islands to the town's article. All of these pages contain no cited information besides stating the barangay being part of Cagdianao. GEOLAND is just a guideline and just states that legally recognized places are typically notable (not always).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I gave three links to Highbeam results that go beyond a GEOLAND argument, and there are more available. Have you considered those? Spinning<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve — according to page 21 of this https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/pressrelease/Caraga.pdf, the barangay had 812 people in 2010 and http://www.nea.gov.ph/2015-census-of-population-of-households?download=1711%3Acaraga in 2015. It would seem to be large enough to warrant at least a short article. Green Giant (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.