Deletion of Traditions of the University of Santo Tomas

Comment: Although they're buried in the many, many references to ''The Varsitarian'' (UST's own newspaper), this article does have more than enough reliable secondary sources to support its inclusion on Wikipedia. The point about there being numerous similar articles about US-based universities' traditions is well-made, if a touch |other stuff exists-y; I wouldn't have guessed such traditions would merit articles here, myself, but if the sources are there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: To the next editor who will decide on the fate of this article. The editor who nominated this for deletion said, ''I redirected this article because I could not identify sources which were not either primary or non-regional according to WP:N/WP:NORG.'' So because of that, I looked for sources, from the original 50+ sources, this article now has 80 sources, to which 44 are reliable, secondary sources. His issue has already been resolved. That editor did not nominate the article because of the content, not because of the trivia too. Almost all of the content here are supported by those 44 reliable articles. The others are supported by university-based publications. Meanwhile, there are 4 tables here, and based on , the 4 tables are not trivia as they are ''selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme''. The Traditions of Texas A&M University, where I patterned this article from, contains a lot of ''trivia'', because thats what you get from an article based on ''traditions''. You expect everything to be trivial. But, to counter that, significant amount of sources have already been provided. Again, the problem with the sources has already been addressed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: if it can be trimmed down of the trivia and cruft. |If not then delete it. It's a prestigious university, but its |traditions are not anything that important
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: I'm not opposed to keeping a separate article, but the incredible amount of trivia added to the article is . Without the trivia, a stand-alone article isn't really necessary
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)