Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pugalo

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. Some good suggestions were made relative to renaming or improving the article. These issues should be undertaken by interested editors but are not mandated by this AfD closure. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pugalo

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 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This and the next 5 discussions should be discussed separately. These articles (and several others) were all WP:PRODded but the prod notices were erased by User:81.138.100.115 so I've brought/will be bringing these articles into AFD today and in the coming days. --Howard the Duck 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per concensus (that I noticed anyway) for low notability standards for geographic locations. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See the latest barangay-related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandayan. Consensus a week ago was to delete. --Howard the Duck 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Consensus~~ Common outcomes has been that all barangay-related deletion discussions has been either delete, merge, or no consensus. --seav (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to strike that last prong - "consensus that there's no consensus"? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 11:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "score" is 2 deletes, 4 merge/move and 1 no consensus. --Howard the Duck 13:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's seav's table on deletion discussions about barangays: Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#List of barangay AfD discussions. --Howard the Duck 06:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if Category:Neighborhoods in Brooklyn would get the same treatment. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as they have sufficient coverage on other sources why not? For example, Coney Island was the "inspiration" of the Philippine Basketball Association team Coney Island Ice Cream Stars. --Howard the Duck 08:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh please, you chose one, look at the rest of the articles. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How did you know I even looked? The fact is I didn't even looked at the link. The fact that Coney Island is well known is enough reason for it to stay. As what I've said, I won't assume for other articles, especially on articles I know nothing about. --Howard the Duck 13:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And no reason to assume bias, since any salvagable info about barangays (if any) should be included in its mother city/municipality. --Howard the Duck 08:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's the bias - neighborhoods in Brooklyn have their own articles and aren't included in the Brooklyn article, but in the Philippines............--brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not really if any salvageable info is in it's mother city/municipality... if any. And, how sure are we that Brooklyn neighborhoods and let's say, Sampaloc, Manila barangays are of "the same level"? Heck, when I was in college I was a resident in one of these barangays, and no literature must have been written about the barangay I resided, except of course for the mundane police reports. Heck, I don't even know the name of the barangay I resided (it's a number). --Howard the Duck 13:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. As previously agreed by Filipino Wikipedians that only notable barangays will have an article. Creating an article for 40000 barangays in the Philippines would be insane. Starczamora (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

My comment has now changed to keep, then edit and move to "Barangay Pugalo, Alcoy, Cebu". Barangays should have a separate article if enough sources (especially statistics) can be presented. I have found a population census as of May 2000, a brief history and etymology, that a prominent mining company has a branch here, that a prominent Cebuano writer was born here, and that it has the largest dolomite quarry in the Philippines. Starczamora (talk) 03:20, 6 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 01:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep even small areas of british cities customarily stay, why shouldn't less Western places be the same? Merkinsmum 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should have articles on all political units in all countries. --Oldak Quill 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OldakQuill and concur strongly with Brewcrewer's note about bias. Even if information such as Starczamora dug up above can't be found, stubs don't hurt. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alcoy, Cebu. Most barangays aren't really notable. Just like Howard's case, I live in Paco, Manila and I often forget the name of my barangay, which is a number. It is really insane to include 40,000+ barangays with little information about it. I think we should propose a new guideline (Wikipedia:Notability (barangay)) to rationalize inclusion of barangay articles. --Jojit (talk) 05:14, 14 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.