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. T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sirang Lupa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Topic satisfies WP:GEOLAND. David.moreno72 11:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have plenty of articles on barangays so it’s pretty much established that all barangays are notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: No, not all of them. --hueman1 (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fellow contributors , the article does NOT cite any sources. --hueman1 (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment well there are multiple pages of refs to ‘Sirang Lupa’ on the Calamba City government website, but they’re in Tagalog so I’m none the wiser. Quite why this particular barangay isn’t notable while so many others are isn’t clear to me. We have lowest-level local government areas in multiple countries on Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HueMan1 See WP:BEFORE. You can help by improving the article not by deleting them. All barangays are notable as people actually live there!-RioHondo (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Topic Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -MA Javadi (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy keep. This is an article on a populated place and administrative division.--RioHondo (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - under WP:GEOLAND, articles must meet WP:GNG and this articles does not meet "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Practically all of the keep !votes here point to WP:GEOLAND as the only justification for this article's subject's notability. As a barangay, Sirang Lupa falls under the "populated, legally recognized places" category. It says there that such places are "typically presumed to be notable", but note that this is logically not the same as "always notable". To borrow a jargon from legal circles, we have "presumption of innocence unless proven guilty"; so we should treat such places as "presumed notable unless proven otherwise". And as a Filipino, I really would not consider most barangays to be notable especially if we are to go by WP:GNG. Aside from the Calamba City website and other government websites, I really could not find any good reliable sources that provide non-trivial coverage about this barangay so I would recommend deleting or merging to the parent article. —seav (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to add another point to my !vote. WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, and Wikipedia guidelines are "sets of best practices" that "editors should attempt to follow", but "occasional exceptions may apply". My view is that WP:GEOLAND is painting with too broad brushstrokes and that it misses nuances peculiar to individual countries or regions. At least among Wikipedians from the Philippines, the question of whether all or most barangays are inherently notable has been repeatedly discussed since the early years of Wikipedia. Majority of Filipino Wikipedians that have participated in AfDs such as these actually think that most barangays are not notable and needs to meet WP:GNG in order to have a separate article. You can see this view in this somewhat outdated list of barangay AfDs where some barangay articles have been kept while other barangay articles have either been deleted or redirected to their parent city/municipality articles. —seav (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:GEOLAND is a very strong presumption, and the exceptions are usually when a place is basically uninhabited, and has almost no identifiable features. GEOLAND does call for articles to fulfill GNG if the area is not legally recognized, but this is an official administrative subdivision, it has its own government officials, and a substantial (8,000+) population. This is a no-brainer. Keep. MarginalCost (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2019 (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.