Deletion of Barandal

Comment: per  and  gazetteer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND||WP:FIVEPILLARS)

Comment: a couple of things. According to our article there are 42,028 such administrative districts, the smallest in the Philippines, though each would seen to have an elected council. These are, effectively, suburbs from the looks of it and given that they are officially gazetted and defined, have elected representatives and are inhabited, they would appear to pass . The caveat there would be if we already have articles for each of the smaller purok that come together for form these. We certainly don't need both. But these would also seem to function as worthwhile redirect and merge targets for anything "smaller" like elected councils, schools, hospitals, etc. Beyond that, the nominator is arguing for redirects, not deletion so I'm not certain these actually qualify for AFD. But mass redirect proposals have been accepted here in the past for the sake of avoiding unnecessary article-by-article bureaucracy. But I'm leaning ''keep all'' at this stage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: It has been my long-time philosophy in Wikipedia that majority of barangays in the Philippines do not deserve articles per . Sure,  suggests that barangays are inherently notable because they are populated and legal entities and with elected officials. But we don't confer inherent notableness to gated communities, suburbs, city/town districts, and quarters, even if all are populated, many are legally recognized, and some have elected officials. Yes, barangays are officially local governments in the Philippines, but many barangays are actually no more than one or two city blocks. For example, the capital city Manila has 897 barangays all with numeric names like "Barangay 1" and "Barangay 2". If  didn't exist, there would hardly be any question that most if not all Manila barangays are not notable. But the guideline (which is ''not'' policy, if I may add) suggests that Wikipedia ought to have individual articles on all of these 897 barangays. For another example, Pasay has 201 barangays, also all named numerically. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2973859 Here is the boundary of Barangay 86 in Pasay as shown in OpenStreetMap; it is approximately 1 hectare in size and covers just 1 city block.To provide more context to this AfD, the question of notability for barangays has been a frequent topic in the Philippine Wikipedia community and has been discussed since almost 10 years now. Here's a Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive_2#Barangays|discussion in 2005 and a Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive15#Barangay_notability|discussion in 2008 for your reference. Wikipedia:Tambayan_Philippines/Frequent_discussions/Articles_on_barangays|There is an outdated page that lists various barangay AfD outcomes and as you can see, it's a mixed bag of keeps, merges, deletes, and no consensus outcomes. There used to be a separate article about Barangay Tisa in Cebu City, but a discussion resulted in a consensus that Barangays in Cebu City be created instead. In the intervening years, even that list article was redirected to Cebu City. The same happened with Barangays of Barugo, Leyte—it has since been redirected to Barugo, Leyte.My delete vote is ''weak'' because my tendency is to say that all of Calamba's barangays are not inherently notable as I argue above. But I think the articles needs individual AfDs in order to determine actual notability per barangay
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:GEOLAND||WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: It seems there are plenty of !votes that only say "Keep per ". But the guideline says: {{gi|Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low.}} As I said above, just saying "per " is a really weak reason to keep an article because the guideline only says that such places are "typically considered notable" which is different from "always considered notable". As such, there should be additional supporting evidence that the article's topic would be considered typically notable. Lacking such evidence, we default back to the basic  guideline that requires reliable sources, which the nominator argues that there is hardly any for the currently AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND||WP:GEOLAND||WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: as per . The particular article I landed on will need all the promotional/ info stripped, but that's not a question for AFD, and I might as well do it now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND||WP:TRAVELGUIDE)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP: GEOLAND)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: per . This may be approaching '''Snow''' given only the nominator is still arguing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: per  and other reasons stated above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)