Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan


 * 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&cent; 12:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Tarusan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Populated (4,926 souls per census) legally recognized place, passing WP:GEOLAND.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 13:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a no contest. WP:GNG > WP:GEOLAND. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Note: this isn't a simple matter, but an ongoing issue that has been going for years (more than a decade actually, thanks to my searches on AfDs on Philippine barangays dating to 2008), but usually the debate becomes dormant, then heats up again., and also I may mention the creator , there is a renewed discussion right now at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. For transparency, I got involved in this messy issue of barangay notability last year, when I suddenly redirected all articles of Navotas' barangays to a short-lived article I created, Barangays of Navotas (now redirects to a relevant section of Navotas), in which objected citing inherent notability of the 40 K+ barangays of the Philippines. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, wherein RioHondo and I got into a heated debate (let's say edit wars) to the point that I almost thought of leaving the entire Wikimedia umbrella altogether (even tlwiki and Commons), but eventually a compromise was reached between us, though no firm consensus was reached, technically. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.)  14:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * See the following "ancient" discussions (resulting to varied closures):
 * Articles for deletion/Tumalip - result was delete
 * Articles for deletion/Masalipit - result was merge with San Miguel, Bulacan
 * Articles for deletion/Salangbato, Philippines - result was keep
 * Articles for deletion/Tetuan, Zamboanga City - result was no consensus

There is also a tabular list of barangays targeted by AfDs, with listed outcomes of the discussions, found at Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some barangays are notable. As it stands, the article clearly shows it is not one of those. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate: Not all Barangays are notable. Based on search results, there are other barangays from various towns/cities bearing that name. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A simple Wikipedia search yields the following areas as having barangays named "Tarusan":
 * Bataraza
 * Laoang
 * Hinatuan
 * _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be an option only if there are multiple articles (not just barangays) named "Tarusan"? Since there's only one article, and the rest aren't going to be created, what is there to disambiguate on? Howard the Duck (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we should make a disambiguation page for three unnotable articles? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 05:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I saw that you added a comment few days ago and then you removed it afterwards, what happened? — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 05:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My reply felt out of place. I've been searching for evidences to save the article, but nada. Maybe this wasn't the right time for the barangay’s creation. To be honest, it can fall on WP:COI because I lived there for 7 years. Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 12:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a genuine distinct settlement, as opposed to a sub-division of an urban area, and is therefore notable per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the barangay notability issue has never been settled since 2005 or about 11 years before 2016, when I started my contributions here. A list of discussions and sometimes hot debates is at Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays, plus an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should all necessarily be accepted as notable, but distinct settlements usually are no matter where they are in the world. It's a situation where it's hard to have a hard and fast rule. We need to decide it on a case-by-case basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: this isn't one of the "distinct settlements" you're talking about. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 10:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly looks like it from the map. So my comment stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even the creator admitted that they couldn't find WP:RSs to prove the notability of the barangay. What does the map say? Maybe you're seeing the rest of the municipality of Bataraza (or even the province of Palawan) and not the barangay itself. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 11:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, I can tell the difference between a village, a municipality and a province. But thank you for the patronising comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then why are you considering this place "distinct"? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 12:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For the same reason that a British hamlet is a "distinct" settlement even if it is administratively part of a larger parish (as almost all are) and has no council or any other administrative structure of its own. Per WP:GEOLAND, a distinct settlement does not even have to have its own administration to have an article. It merely has to be recognised as a separate settlement. This clearly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The administrative structure of the Philippines is like: PHILIPPINES --> Provinces and Independent Cities (excluding the regions which are not true official divisions because almost all, except Bangsamoro, have no elected officials) --> Component cities and municipalities (outside independent cities; the nunicipalities are Philippine towns) --> barangays (these are loosely known also as villages, like being referred to in the newscast The World Tonight). Unique to barangays is that these have elected officials (like a barangay captain or the "mayor/chief of the village"), unlike most villages around the world where these only exists in nonpolitical / non-administrative contexts. In some of the past AfDs which resulted to keep, some users even compared barangays to the 30,000+ communes of France (e.g. Bordeaux, Cannes, and 1-person Rochefourchat), even if the municipal level of France lies in the communes while the municipal level of the Philippines lies in two levels (the independent cities called "highly-urbanized cities", and the province-dependent "component cities" and the "municipalities"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See my comment above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:GEOLAND does not guarantee notability, all corners of the Philippines are under the jurisdiction of barangays, and nothing is significant with this barangay. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 10:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminded that "Passing WP:GEOLAND doesn't mean it is automatically notable." An article passing WP:GNG does, though, and this one reads more like a database entry than an actual article. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the difference between WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG is that the former says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" while the latter states "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list", without "typically". So yes, even it passes WP:GEOLAND, there's no guarantee that it automatically qualifies for an article, even less so than what WP:GNG does for a subject. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A village with 10 people will pass GEOLAND in the UK or the US. This village has 5,000 people, and is recognized as a Barangay. It is a distinct settlement, detached and several km away from other settlements in the region of Bataraza. If this were a sub-division of a city, like a city ward, this would be debatable. But in this case this is a distinct and separate settlement that passes GEOLAND.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also in this regard, WP:5P1 applies and not only GNG, as Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer for geography.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Aren't barangays subdivisions of the cities and municipalities of which they are inside of? Barangay Tarusan is the same is Manila's Barangay 666... which is sorta like a city ward. These two barangays are not supposed to be different from each other. Barangays are not supposed to be thought of as "separate settlements", as the entire Philippines is divided into barangays. Every square inch of land in the Philippines is incorporated into a city or municipality. You won't think of Barangay 666 as a "separate settlement" from Manila. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another thought: Barangay 667 is just across the street from Barangay 666. Are those separate settlements, or just included as one settlement in Manila? Is the Northeast megalopolis is just one huge "settlement"? Where does a settlement begin and end? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Barangay 666 is a group of buildings inside the city of Manila - notability is similar to how we would assess a neighborhood or ward - it is part of a larger city and is not a distinct settlement. Same for 667. But Tarusan is different. Tarusan is in the middle between Rio Tuba proper (14km away) and the actual town (not the overarching administrative division) of Bataraza (12km away by air, more by road that goes around the bay). Geographically, Tarusan is a separate settlement (with some 5000 inhabitants).-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not how barangays work. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In assessing GEOLAND, I am not looking at whether this is a barangay or not but whether this is a separate settlement geographically.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Barangays are never separate from municipalities. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What are talking about Tarusan being in between Bataraza and Rio Tuba? — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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"  . It's a village, hence we as a gazette include it per GEOLAND.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Do you have anything to add here? I'm not very good at explaining things. — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 14:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 15:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * But one thing's for sure, the Philippines isn't the US or the UK! — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 15:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We just call them "mga barangay"... — hueman1 ( talk •  contributions ) 15:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Are you still basing your argument on WP:GEOLAND, though, or on something else? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Source: "the mining community of Rio Tuba" (A community with a large builty up area, a sea port, and an air port). WP:GEOLAND and WP:5P1 as a gazetteer.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 15:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * (Also, no one's disputing that notability of Rio Tuba here, or elsewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC))
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 15:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 16:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Only because they haven't been created yet. If someone were to create them, they'd pass AfD.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 16:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * This is a second reminder that passing WP:GEOLAND does not make a "settlement" notable. WP:GNG does, despite other stuff exists elsewhere. We can argue about WP:GEOLAND night and day, but that does not confer automatic notability. Either improve the actual article, which is in such a story state, the infobox is longer than the actual prose! (Also, it's not that deleting this means it would be extinguished from the face of the earth. We can add its database-like entries to the Bataraza article.) Howard the Duck (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I should point out that at AfD it has almost always been held that this is not the case and that all recognised settlements have generally been held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I should point out that WP:OSE... wait I already did! I guess WP:CCC? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not changed by a couple of people opining that it has changed! It is changed by many people over various discussions successfully challenging it. Would you care to point us to the latter. WP:OSE is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. It is not being argued that this should exist because similar articles do exist. It is being argued that this article should exist because consensus is that articles on such entities should exist. That's a very different thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, for the third time, WP:GEOLAND doesn't confer automatic notability to any article, and applications to any discussions to this as it is currently written is wrong. Any arguments citing this should know that fact. There are actually barangay-related AFDs that went to deletion, so it's not 100% as you make it out to be. We need something better than "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS" on people who show up on settlement-related AFDs, shouting over on people who actually live there, because this is how we do it Switzerland. TBH, I dunno how Swiss local government works, have no pretentions on how it works, and would not impose on the Swiss themselves on how it is done. Just because there articles on Swiss..., I dunno even what are they, towns? Hamlets and wards don't really mean sense to me. It doesn't mean barangays should. Classic WP:OSE. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability (geographic features) is a notability guideline that is on equal footing to GNG (also notability guideline), and is more specificic than GNG. Populated, legally recognized place are presume notable. WP:5P1 is a fundemental principle (core policy) and is of even greater weight. Named animal species (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES) are similar. See also WP:PLACEOUTCOMES: "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source". I have already provided a reliable source verifying existence as a village ([ Manila Times]). It would be astounding if we were to delete villages with 5,000 people in the Phillipines while keeping hundreds of villages (elsewhere in the world) with a population of less than 10.--[[User:Eostrix | Eostrix ]] (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 17:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's compare and contrast automatic notability guidelines:
 * WP:GEOLAND: "are typically presumed to be notable"
 * WP:NPOL: "are presumed to be notable"
 * WP:NBOOK: "is presumed notable"
 * WP:EVENT: "is presumed to be notable"
 * WP:GEOLAND does not confer automatic notability. It's not even of "equal footing to GNG" as it even looks something better than WP:GNG. It even starts with this: "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable". Look, if a barangay meets WP:GNG, I won't oppose that. This one, at its current state, doesn't. WP:5PILLARS states that Wikipedia has features of (not is!) a gazeteer... so there's a difference. It's not a gazeeter, just has features of one. You won't expect it to be one. WP:PLACEOUTCOMES? WP:CCC. We're not bound by past consensus. This is not stare decisis. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to a List of barangays in Palawan, which Category:Lists of barangays in Philippine provinces doesn't have yet, or for now Bataraza. Barangays are not automatically notable subdivisions but they should be covered in lists. Reywas92Talk 18:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * perhaps to Bataraza is fine. I oppose creation of more barangay list articles, see what happened to one that I created (Barangays of Navotas) and the resulting heated conflict and debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most people who simply point to WP:GEOLAND to argue for keeping this barangay article (and other past barangay AfDs) are typically not from the Philippines. While most Filipinos (like all of the ones that have chimed in this discussion AFAICT), do not consider barangays to be automatically notable and instead should be decided on a case-by-case basis. —seav (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Seav, that's an astute observation. What is at clash here is that in most (or all) of the rest of the world we consider every verified populated village (even very low populations, e.g. scores of low-population Russian villages) as notable under GEOLAND (irrespective of GNG) - if we can just verify existence reliably. The reason for invoking GEOLAND is not the Barangay status in and of itself (though this shows legal recognition), but because this is a legally recognized distinct populated place.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 02:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There's no reason whatsoever that the Philippines should be an exception to this rule which applies to every other country. Seems a little strange that it's Filipinos who seem to want articles on the Philippines deleted and non-Filipinos who want them to be kept! It's usually the other way around. Most odd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, it is us Filipinos who will largely bear the responsibility for improving and maintaining these articles since we would be more familiar with the subject and available sources. Personally, I prefer a depth-first approach to encyclopedia building (ex. improving the municipality article first and only spawning of child articles per WP:SPINOFF when warranted and following WP:GNG) instead of a breadth-first approach (creating stubs for barangays) since that results in a lesser burden on us volunteers (a lot less infoboxes, nav boxes, categories, etc. to keep an eye on). Without meaning any disrespect, I find it presumptuous that non-Filipinos would know better than us on how to be responsible for PH-related articles. —seav (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha! I found an instance of foreign "barangay-level" subdivision with their own articles. The case of Paris: 13th arrondissement of Paris, yet seeing its sources majority of them are not even connected to the municipal arrondissement itself, but are related to things inside the arrondissement (like landmarks) as well as stats. Also to 14th arrondissement of Paris and 17th arrondissement of Paris. The section 5th arrondissement of Paris is an awful directory with no sources. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * it appears there's a precedent in notability standard in the U.S., at least in NJ: Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * These are housing developments, not settlements! Completely different thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I got a jackpot this time: Articles for deletion/Bolsa Knolls, California. Result was redirect to Salinas, California. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One that resulted to deletion: Articles for deletion/Achnaluachrach, Sutherland. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Aberdeen, California - result was delete. According to : "We can't infer the existence of a settlement from mentions in newspapers or the fact it has a post office, that would be original research." Same as for barangays - we can't infer the inherent notability of a barangay just because it appears on the Google Map or even OpenStreetMap, or it has local government (barangay heads or captains, barangay council), when in fact these are politically and administratively part of real municipalities - the cities and Philippine municipalities (towns). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bad example, Aberdeen could not be verified as a settlement (as a post office does not automatically mean that). For Tarusan we can easily verify it is a village: "the remote village of Tarusan" according to The Manila Times.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 19:48, 1 May 2021 (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.