Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malayan Hymn


 * 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 delete. Katietalk 12:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Malayan Hymn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is about a "college hymn" of a particular college in Philippines. I see no reason why it is notable. The hymn seems to have been written by Reynaldo B. Vea and Joel Navarro in 2007. (Note that I found this in the UK archives, but it seems to be another song with the same name as the date given is 18 May 1869). -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obvious "merge and redirect" to Malayan Colleges Laguna or one of the other articles.  Nominator appears to have not followed WP:BEFORE.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Malayan Colleges Laguna per WP:BEFORE ~Kvng (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that the material has been merged, I have no opinion about whether to delete or redirect what remains. I never felt it qualified as a stand-alone article and that's clearly the consensus here so I'm happy. Thanks again to for the save. ~Kvng (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The reason I listed this was because there seems to be another "Malayan Hymn" which is an older song (see this) and I do not know which is the primary topic. I don't know if it is appropriate to redirect this to the article of a private college. The only sources available for the college hymn are the college websites itself, which is not an independent secondary source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's a better primary topic, just move this to Malayan Hymn (Malayan Colleges Laguna) or somesuch and put the new primary topic here. No need for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to Closing Admin - I have already merged any salvageable contents to both pages (See, ) although I couldn't find any independent secondary citations for it. This can be closed as a redirect and I have no particular opposition to it. (but I would still be glad if independent secondary sources can be shown). Struck my comments. As information has already been merged and there are 2 possible redirect targets (of which it is not possible to verify which one is more appropriate), I think the article can be safely deleted. We don't really need the redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article must be redirected now (see WP:MAD). You definitely can't delete it. Doesn't matter what one you target it too (personally I would go with the parent article). AIR corn (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted my merges, as the content is unsourced. I don't see any value in keeping unverifiable content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a crucial difference between unsourced and unverifyable. If there is nothing in the material likely to be challenged, there is no verifyability problem including it. We can also include unsourced material if we believe sources can be found. ~Kvng (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are trying to say. In this case however, I couldn't find sources except for a mention on the website which doesn't specify what "Malayan Hymn" is. In general, I do not add content to articles which cannot be supported by reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see the utility of a redirect. A redirect leaves us with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue (as noted above).  It's also clear there's not enough content for an article.  Considering that it's the same song for both schools (and we don't know which is the more well-known one, since they both have articles), a dab would essentially get the reader to the same information, but require an extra step to get to the school.  So I think in this case we're better off not complicating the system with a redirect and letting the text search figure it out. MSJapan (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The PRIMARYTOPIC issue is a very poor reason to argue to delete. It is easily solved, if really a problem.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. See my response to above for details. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this article is an orphan and I don't think we will lose something significant by deleting it, especially now that the (unsourced) information in the article has been added to two other articles. Secondly the problem with the redirect is that there are two targets for a redirect here. Which one do we use? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to acknowledge that those are reasonable points and I could be persuaded to change my !vote. I'm not sure whether that would be helpful or just prolong a discussion that is now basically irrelevant due to your merge edits which I thank you for. ~Kvng (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to to Malayan Colleges Laguna. The info is already in the article so there is nothing here to merge. AIR corn (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Choices left now brought up an important issue at my talk page about WP:MAD. I was struggling with that as well - how to show attribution and yet remove the redirect. The problem in this particular case is that there are 2 possible redirect targets Malayan High School of Science and Malayan Colleges Laguna and both of them are equally plausible. To be honest, my first preference was to simply delete the article (without merging) as it is about a school song for which no secondary citations exist. But since a merge was explicitly suggested twice, I went ahead and did it. I'm not sure what can be done now, but here are some possibilities
 * Undo merge, delete Malayan Hymn as no reliable secondary citations exist for the information.
 * Convert Malayan Hymn to a dab page. Create individual redirects such as Malayan Hymn (Malayan Colleges Laguna) and Malayan Hymn (Malayan High School of Science) to add to the dab page.
 * Record history of contributors at talk pages of merge targets. Delete Malayan Hymn. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer choice 1 as ultimately the information added does not have reliable secondary citations. Failing that, choice 3 is OK as well. I don't prefer choice 2 - maintaining a disambiguation page for a non-notable school song (for which no reliable secondary sources exist) is a bit too much. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Prefer Lemongirl942's choice 3. Lack of secondary sources is not a reason to delete when there is an obvious merge option; and the multiplicity of merge options is a pain but not a reason to not do it.  Choice 2 is overkill for something so small, and for anyone searching the wikipedia search engine will do the best job.  Choice 3, for the history of contributors, I count only one substantive editor, .  All other edits were not creastive additions requiring attribution.  The second best claim for authorship is User:RJaguar3, for intelligent deletion of the copyrighted lyrics, which I would not consider sufficient.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I think WP:redirects are cheap and there is little cause for confusion from redirecting to one over the other as they both have the same information. Simply redirecting the article to one of these is the easiest solution and that still remains my first choice. If you still want to go down the deletion route I would go with option 1. I do not like merging unsourced content into an article and when completing a merge unless the specific unsourced information is mentioned only concentrate on the sourced content. Another option is to undo the merge, move the page to Talk:Malayan Colleges Laguna/Malayan Hymn and then remerge the content from there into the articles. Then Malayan Hymn can be deleted, removing it from the search engines, and there is still a paper trail to follow for the editor contributions if anyone ever feels the need. I still prefer simply leaving a redirect. AIR corn (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * and Sorry, I have reverted my merges now. The content is essentially unsourced and I do not support adding unsourced content to articles. I see no value in keeping it now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and then Redirect because if the current contents are there as it is, there's no particular need for this unless needed for history uses, nothing else certainly better to keep this currently as is. SwisterTwister   talk  17:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your tortured English seems to have it backwards. As the content was already merged, don't delete (other WP:MAD solutions are more complex). As there is no particular need for the redirect (implied is that the search function will do better without the redirect?), the page could be moved, to Malayan Hymn (Malayan Colleges Laguna) for example, and redirected from that title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted my merge . The content is unsourced and I don't see any value in keeping it. Deleting this article seems best now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying Lemongirl. So do you consider the material "unverifiable"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for reverting the merge though. (Due to the burden of proof lying on the editor adding content, I do not add unsourced content to article as a matter of principle). I could not find any references which state "Malayan Hymn is the college hymn". A music sheet containing the name of the composers is uploaded to the website of Mapúa Institute of Technology (See ). Nothing states the relationship of this song to any of the institutes. If reliable sources come up in the future, someone can add it to any of the 3 college articles. But this article has no value at present. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete with DAB replacement given also the 1869 reference. Aoziwe (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am tired, but I am sure you could explain that better? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete the page, its contents having been merged into the two other articles, replace with a DAB page referencing the two merge recipient pages and a third reference to the 1869 instance referred to at the top of this discussion. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reliable significant sources nor even sources to included it in another article. Spshu (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Good grief this is a completely non-notable college hymn of barely notable college(s). Any cited information about it should be in that article; there certainly should not be a separate article on the college hymn. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.