Talk:Salangbato, Laguna

What is the source for the data provided? Is it clear of copyright? RJFJR 18:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've merged this into Famy, Laguna

The AfD said to keep the article: i.e., don't delete information. It's been 10 months now since the AfD and I don't think there's a procedural hindrance to reorganizing the article. Take note that the article has had not any non-bot expansion since that AfD, so I don't think there's a problem with being bold this time, 10 months after the AfD (which by the way does not say "don't merge into the parent article") and merge the most of the info (all of it still unreferenced, by the way) into the parent article. (I've also updated one info there and added a ref.) --seav (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article was first just redirected into Famy, Laguna. This redirection was opposed (and reverted) so far only by Brewcrewer. A second motion was to do a bold merge (including cleaning up and placing the appropriate notices (such as the section above), which was still reverted without explanation on this talk page by Brewcrewer. So this is making a formal proposal to merge.

Here are the reasons, slightly rehashed from the section above:

1. Previous AfD was closed as keep. This does not mean "you can't merge", but just "don't delete info".
2. It's been 10 months since that AfD and there has been no expansion, or adding of additional references to this stub article. At this point, a merge with the parent article is a good option (see the Text and Context reasons at WP:MERGE).

Discussion

• Support. As nominator --seav (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Geographic locations, especially distinct political units, are inherently notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography. An article does not need to be continuously expanded for it to be considered article worthy. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:INHERENT says "Whether some topics are or are not inherently notable is, on Wikipedia, irrelevant" and WP:OUTCOMES say: "Do take precedents into account, but articles should still be evaluated on their merits and their conformance to standard content policies such as WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV." Taking into account previous precedents (of barangays in particular and not just some "geographic place"), there's no consensus that barangays are inherently notable and that common outcomes becomes the sole reason for keeping a separate article. --seav (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Conveniently, you quote from the "arguments against" section of WP:Inherent Notability essay. Your quote from WP:OUTCOMES is also irrelevant. This article does comply with WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Government sources are accepted as RS for geographic information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's go back a bit. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV only say what kind of material can be included into Wikipedia (nothing about whether the material deserves individual articles or not). WP:OUTCOMES say what are usually kept or deleted in AfDs and has no prohibition against merging (not deleting, mind you) place articles into larger ones. WP:INHERENT is not even a guideline. I'm not saying the information from Salangbato should be removed from Wikipedia; I'm saying there's nothing that says that the info on Salangbato can't be merged into larger articles. So what then is your argument for retaining a separate article? --seav (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did not even give an essay-based reason for a merge. You mention the fact that a Keep result at an afd does not mean that the article cannot be merged. But it surely does not mean that it should be merged! Your second basis for a merge is also not policy based. There is no policy, guideline, or essay that says that if articles aren't continuously edited they should be merged or deleted. I don't care if nobody edits the article for another 100 years. What's the relevance? Maybe the article isn't edited because its a perfect article :-) ? In any case, I admit I'm not giving policy based reasons for the non-merge, but at the same time you aren't giving any policy based reasons for its merge. My opinion is that geographic locations with its own political entity are notable enough for its own wikipedia article. This opinion is the opinion of the majority of wikipedia editors. Cruise the afd log and you'll see far less notable geographic entities resulting in Keeps. You've got hills, canals, and uninhabited towns that are kept under the inherently notable argument. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:MERGE is a help page and it says there:

There are several good reasons to merge a page:

1. Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.
4. Context - If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. For instance, minor characters from works of fiction are generally covered in a "List of characters in <work>", and can be merged there; see also WP:FICT.

I've mentioned it in my nomination above. Reason #3 fits the bill. Reason #2 and #4 might also be applicable. So there's a case for merging. You're only saying there's a case for not deleting which is not the same as not merging. --seav (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty colorful box that you placed on the page but I'm unsure how much it helps your argument. #2 and #4 could theoretically apply but they happen not to in this case. Nor does #3 apply; this article is not "very short". A stub maybe, but not very short. As for reasons not to merge - the full merge of this article into Famy will create an awkward disconnect. The Famy article does not have any information on any of the other barangays. A merge at this time will result in half of the Famy article taken up by the Salangbato article. That doesn't make too much sense. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no use talking about the difference between what's a very short article and a stub article. Also, saying there's a disconnect between having the Salangbato info in the Famy, Laguna and merging "at this time" -> "doesn't make too much sense" is addressed by your very own argument that "I don't care if nobody edits the article for another 100 years". If it's ok that Salangbato never gets expanded, why is it a problem that the Famy article itself doesn't get expanded "at this time" to include all the other barangays? I think that by including the info at Famy, Laguna, there's actually an incentive for new editors to expand Famy, Laguna itself to add info on other barangays. Then we can revise, reorganize, improve the raw info into a great article about Famy. --seav (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge for the mean time until we could obtain enough data to warrant a decent start article (perhaps in the next census?).--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Salangbato, Laguna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060220144911/http://www.laguna.gov.ph:80/Articles/05_08_Famy.htm to http://www.laguna.gov.ph/Articles/05_08_Famy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)