Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sapangbato


 * 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 no consensus MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that that doesn't preclude a merge, which is probably necessary. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sapangbato

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   —Canley (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep towns geography based subjects should have inherent notability. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Barangays are NOT towns. They're a part of a town. Also, see the latest barangay-related AFD: Articles for deletion/Pandayan. Consensus a week ago was to delete. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That means everything on earth is notable? LOL. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. There comes a point when some geographical unit is too small or too trivial that it doesn't deserve its own article and should instead be aggregated elsewhere. A blanket statement like "X's have inherent notability" is not a good argument in itself. You have to back it up with more substantial arguments. --seav (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Common outcomes:"Geological features named on maps, such as Willow Creek Pass (Montana), are verifiable and so acceptable".-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Barangays aren't just purely geographical areas. They are political units, made up of people. Willow Creek Pass (Montana) is a landform, barangays, not really. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * then a fortiori!-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me the "policy" where all political units are notable. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a geographic area and a political unit.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are all political units notable? Or the better question is, are all political units elsewhere on earth comparable to each other? (PS: All political units are geographical areas, too.) -- Howard  the   Duck  03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't answer that, but I do know that Sapangbato is more notable then Willow Creek Pass (Montana). (btw, political units aren't necessarily geographic areas).-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How did you assume that? -- Howard  the   Duck  03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Google search: Willow Creek 1,710 vs. Sapangbato 1,440. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. English language sources are easier to find for an American geographic area. I'm actually shocked, I though that there would be a greater difference. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You apparently don't know that it's easier to find English-language sources about Philippine articles than Tagalog (and other Philippine languages) ones. In fact, there is not a single Tagalog language broadsheet at least on Metro Manila so it's logical to find lots more English language sources for Philippine-related topics. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if that's true, there's far more Philippine language sources for Sapangbato then Philippine language sources for Willow Creek Pass (Montana).-- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 05:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First page of the Google search for Sapangbato: Friendster, general population count, a social networking website, Wikimapia, photos, a travel website, web forums, and trivial coverage. Not really reliable sources to create an article... -- Howard  the   Duck  05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's my point, English language sources are hard to come by. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So why create articles (or even have a long discussion to keep) for an article which can't have sources (which are essentially true for almost all barangays? -- Howard  the   Duck  05:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really insist on keep despite unnotability and even scarcity of reliable sources, I suggest to copy these barangay articles to WikiPilipinas. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence back to my original argment: Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS trumps common outcomes. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus trumps WP:RS. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. And no reason to use other deletion discussions which are remotely related to the barangay concept. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown that it changed. A couple of afd's with your two other cronies that noone else noticed isn't considered change. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 08:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, barangays are not geological features. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, but they are (they are also political units).-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So answer my question above, are all political units notable? -- Howard  the   Duck  05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No not all political units are notable, but this geographic entity, per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, is. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, WP:N trumps Articles for deletion/Common outcomes (which is not really consensus, some AFDs often end up with "no consensus"). If you can prove Sapangbato in particular and barangays in general "has/have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then it could have it's own article. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Substantial geographic entities are notable and that is the concensus.
 * Reindent: Wait a millisecond... you're basically saying we should apply standards done to other articles. I have yet to see an argument from you that this article should be kept on its own merits. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Substabtial geography based subjects that are found on all maps are inherently notable, and that is the concensus.See: Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 08:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that Common Outcomes is not a guideline much less policy. It just documents what's been the result of many AfD and is not policy. So appealing to it is also not a convincing argument in itself. So it would be best if you argue about saving this article on the subject's merits. I have plainly stated my reasons being that there can be no reliable sources about these barangays from which to source a full article about it. Note that I haven't said that there shouldn't be any mention about these barangays in Wikipedia, just that barangays don't deserve individual articles. I should know, I'm Filipino. --seav (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any arguments aside from WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? How about arguments pertaining to this barangay per se? What makes this barangay notable? -- Howard  the   Duck  09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment parts of this article also appear to be copyvios. Some parts of the information on "Chef Henry Pacheco Bonifacio" appear to be copied from here and here and probably other places, with some other stuff copied and then modified slightly, for example. Dreaded Walrus t c 05:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. problematic potential copyvios were removed. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, then edit and move to "Barangay Sapangbato, Angeles City". Although the population census of Pampanga does not include Angeles City (because Angeles City was counted as a single unit, without a breakdown of barangays as shown here, just click "Region III - Central Luzon"), the barangay possesses some level of notability such as:
 * being the location of Fort Stotsenburg, which eventually became Clark Air Base,
 * the birthplace of Allan Pineda Lindo (more popularly known as Apl d'Ap of the Black Eyed Peas),
 * a tourist destination that is being promoted by Department of Tourism's Pampanga Department,
 * the location of an award-winning digital film "Manoro",
 * a battle ground used by the US Army 37th Division against the Japanese Army in WWII,
 * part of Abacan river system, which was affected by lahar after the Mount Pinatubo eruption, and possibly many others. Starczamora (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't the notability of this place passed on to Angeles City? For example, Apl.de.ap acknowledges his hometown as Angeles City. And several other places may have been devastated by Mount Pinatubo, too. -- Howard  the   Duck  05:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The two articles you have mentioned specifically mentioned "Sapangbato", and not just "Angeles City" in general. And, if you could remember, Apl.de.ap used "Sapangbato" as part of his lyrics for Bebot (Galing sa bayan ng Sapangbato/ Nagpunta ng L.A. at nagtrabaho). Starczamora (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But you can make a case for every barangay that has been mentioned in songs, right? And Apl should have forgotten his local geography since "bayan" refers to the municipality/city.
 * Also, the barangay encompassing the beach on Leyte in which MacArthur landed won't have an article, either. That's more important than this (perhaps a lot of barangays had US-Japan skirmishes on WWII, they were all over the place. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That can be useful information. Besides, I'm smelling that some Filipino Wikipedians are only intent on keeping rich barangays like Bel-Air Village and Dasmariñas Village and consider barangays outside of Metro Manila as meaningless and unnotable.  I mean, the data are already glaring and you still deny the barangay an article of its own?  Systemic bias? Starczamora (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm formulating for a workaround on those "rich" barangays... I PRODded them too, you know. -- Howard  the   Duck  02:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But still, we cannot deny that some barangays are notable. I mean, at first I thought bot-creating 40,000 barangay articles would be crazy, but we can select which barangay article to write about--especially with enough level of notability that is exemplified in this subject. For instance, Barangay Forbes Park, Makati City has been referred by the local media as the richest barangay in the country, Barangay Parola Compound, Manila is the city's largest (and among the poorest), Barangay Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga is the town's main business hub (to the point everybody thought it is a separate town), or Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan which is a cluster of barangays named after actress Carmen Rosales. Starczamora (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the workaround I'll be doing on some barangays isn't on the premise that they're notable because they are barangays but because they are neighborhoods. As stated in WT:PINOY, these "rich" barangays are not always coternimous with the neighborhoods they're famous for. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, political units in all countries should have articles. --Oldak Quill 02:03, 10 February 2008 (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.