Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilabaan Island: Difference between revisions

Hilabaan Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Doubtful notability and misleading label. The article talks about a barangay rather than an island and content here, most of it atrociously-written and unbecoming for the competency standards of Wikipedoa, was made by SPAs with probable undisclosed COIs Borgenland (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Barangays do not meet notability standards on their own, and there’s little in the way of sourcing. It’s possible the island is notable, and there shouldn’t be any issue with recreating an article at this title if someone wants to, but not about the barangay. SportingFlyer T·C 22:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move to Hilabaan, Dolores: Honestly, I think the “Delete” arguments here are missing the bigger picture. While I agree the current article is messy and the title “Hilabaan Island” is confusing, the claim that “Barangays aren’t notable” is just wrong. Under WP:GEOLAND, legally recognized populated places are presumed notable. This isn’t a random topic; it’s a verified administrative division. The source provided (Philstar) confirms that “Hilabaan National High School” exists and even ranked 2nd in the region for the NAT, which supports the fact that this is a functioning community. The issue here is quality, not notability. Deleting a valid geography entry just because the first draft was poor and mislabeled is overkill. The right move is to rename it to Hilabaan, Dolores to match the scope of a barangay, and then let editors clean up the text. ACROM12 [TALK] 12:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Heh; no vote on this, but there had been long discussions on how WP:GEOLAND applies to barangays, and my favorite comment is “I’d prefer doing this than explaining to a white man what a barangay is”, about Filipinos nuking barangay articles. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Haha, I can definitely understand that frustration! It is a unique administrative unit. But since we do have the source for the High School here, I think it’s worth doing the ‘Move’ cleanup rather than nuking a valid location. Less headache in the long run than recreating it later! ACROM12 [TALK] 22:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think it’s a “unique” administrative unit, as there are similar instances elsewhere. People would just want barangays to pass GEOLAND otherwise their villages/hamlets/parishes/communes would have to rely on WP:GNG which would be next to impossible on many cases.

  Existence of a high school does not confer notability; that’s not even stated in GEOLAND. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The settlement had 2,411 residents according to the 2024 census. This number is large enough to satisfy the spirit of GOELAND, even if some editors believe that barangays are excluded from it. There is also an article on renewable energy there and a paper on its school, so it passes GNG as well. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOLAND has no population requirement; in fact even ghost towns qualify. Articles about renewable energy facilities can be created if there are WP:RS available passing WP:GNG. College theses are WP:OR and shouldn’t be used as references. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]