Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapampangan Ku

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 Redirect per GFDL. The page has already been merged editorially; therefore, GFDL requires redirect to preserve content attribution history. Xoloz 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kapampangan Ku

This article is about a local folk song, and contains its full text. Delete, (or if the song is reasonably notable, transwiki to Wikisource). Shalom ^Hello 02:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This song fails the notability test. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this article from third-party reliable sources as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki Agree with the nom, for the purposes of Wikipedia, this definitely fails WP:V and WP:NOT. This may also very well fail WP:N, in which case it should be deleted. If it is in fact notable, then it belongs on Wikisource, not here. Rackabello 21:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails notability Harlowraman 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged to Andy Alviz which I just created, please redirect there as required by the GFDL. Those claiming this is "impossible to verify" apparently haven't tried a Google News Archive search? cab 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. cab 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and transwiki. Kappa 04:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think this is Alviz' original composition, rather than being a a pre-existing folk song that he modernised; in that case, it would be copyrighted and invalid for inclusion in Wikisource. cab 06:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.