Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masalipit
to the next larger administrative unit. I live in a Ward, with boundaries documented on city maps, and elect an alderman. But there are not articles on most such wards, or neighborhoods, if they are more encyclopedically represented by an article on the larger administrative unit. The fact that something is labelled does not automatically make it notable. The courtesy notability given to villages and hamlets, because of their being dots on some map, was because they are not part of a city. The entire article is unreferenced original research, except for the population and geographical coordinates.The "inherent notability of every inhabited (or formerly inhabited) place" is well satisfied by an article about the city or larger administrative unit of which it is a part. By Carlossuarez46's logic, I could demand an article about my Wards of the United States|Ward, the City block I live on, or the house or apartment building I live in, because all are "inhabited places,"  and are easily |verified by reference to maps and publicly available property information in tax assessors' files. Someone in the country could demand an article on the square mile Section (United States land surveying) they live in, since it is inhabited and officially documented, but such an article would be redirected in general to the County (United States) article. We often delete or merge articles about small real estate developments,  or "neighborhoods" lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, since the city  they are in has an article. If this "barangay" has had substantial coverage in books,and magazines, then present the sourced information and write a great article. But do not simply fall back on "inherent notability
— User:Edison, 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:V (Wikipedia:Verifiability)