Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetuan, Zamboanga City

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, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tetuan, Zamboanga City

)

This article is a

significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep geography based subjects should have inherent notability.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Barangays aren't purely geography-based articles. --Howard the Duck 05:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography:"Geological features named on maps, such as Willow Creek Pass (Montana), are verifiable and so acceptable".--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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) 09:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unlike the other ones you've mentioned, this one asserts some notability as the largest population in its particular city.
matt91486 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Read the fine print: largest population in Zamboanga City's Eastern congressional district. Furthermore, there are 136 cities, and several of them are divided into 2 or more congressional districts (Manila has 6 districts and 800+ barangays (every block is a barangay)). If articles are to be created for each and every largest barangay in a city, there would be 200+ articles that could've been merged to their mother cities. Furthermore, I think this is the "poblacion" (town center), and every city and municipality has one (there are 1,494 municipalities) so an article for each and every poblacion is basically trash since it can never be expanded and be better of seen at the mother city/municipality article. --Howard the Duck 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all barangays in the Philippines are not notable enough in themselves to merit individual articles in Wikipedia and there is a problem of getting enough
reliable sources to create a full-fledged article. A simple Google search does not turn up any non-trivial references (i.e., talks about the barangay itself, not just mentioning the barangay as an address) to this barangay. --seav (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Seav and Howard--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Zamboanga City". Although its webpage has detailed information including population and etymology, its only notability is that it is the location of Zamboanga City High School. Starczamora (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political units in all countries should have articles. --Oldak Quill 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. I'd usually agree that political units should have their own article like Oldak said above, but they'd still need to supply references. This article fails
WP:RS and as such is not notable. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Zamboanga City per Starczamora. --Jojit (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
talk) 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge per Starczamora.
^{it seems the winds have stopped...} 13:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - the article contains no
notability. Guest9999 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment This is exactly why it is so hard to close this AfD. Let me point out that two other baranguay articles were nominated at the same time, and they were kept with a recommendation to rename. The reasons cited for the keeps were that all inhabited places are notable and that all political entities are notable. I know that wikipedia is not consistent and consensus can change.... but isn;t there precedent here that should be considered? JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in an attempt to steer this discussion toward the right closing. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - surely the right closing is the one which correctly interprets the
consensus of the community, if you feel there is a pre-existing consensus that the article to be kept wouldn't it be better to give your reasoning rather than trying to stack votes to sway a closing admin - from your comment above you clearly have an opinion on the matter. Regarding your comment I would point out that nothing should be considered inherently notable without objective evidence ~~and that articles on "inhabited places" such as roads and very small towns are routinely deleted~~. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. A geographical location is notable if it appears on maps; and any political unit rather has to appear on maps (at least, local political maps). So a geographical location that is a political unit is necessarily notable. --FOo (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My house (and every house on my street) appears on local maps of my area (political or otherwise); so do groups of
reliable, independent sources not by appearing on maps. Guest9999 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

~~::You are quickly losing the argument, sir. Please continue.~~ JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Can you provide any example(s) to support your statement that "very small towns are routinely deleted"?[reply]

Everyone is talking about this established precedent and consensus for keeping inhabited places, it seems:

In fact, the closest I've seen to a delete on an inhabited place were kept with "no consensus" outcome:

JERRY ^talk _contribs 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Quickly looking back at the deletion log for Febuary it does appear that I was mistaken. The only geographical deletion I noticed was
notability I stand but my view that it should be deleted. I'm sorry about the mistake, when I made the claim I believed it to be accurate. Guest9999 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

No problem, I am sure it was made in good faith, and if it had been a factual statement, would have been very relevant to the discussion. Thank-you for updating this with your findings. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to zamboanga.com Tetuan has a population of more than 32,000, which is much more than some of the places JERRY has listed above. Geographical and political units are
Philippine-American War, as the New York Times article above mentions. I couldn't find much information on the internet, but there are probably books and articles about the colonisation of the Philippines that mention this location. Bláthnaid 22:41, 17 February 2008 (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.