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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Lunar New Year Cup[edit]

2015 Lunar New Year Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced article listing participants and their stats in a competition. Fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTN and WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence of available sources from which to create prose. - MrX 12:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @MrX: I'd bundle in the rest of the individual Lunar New Year Cup articles, because it wouldn't make sense to only have one deleted. ansh666 23:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps, but I'm reluctant to bundle other articles in now that someone has !voted.- MrX 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into "Lunar New Year Cup". STSC (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The stats are not excessive; the article contains "sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader", as in "Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012". STSC (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is plentiful: a Google search on "2015 Lunar New Year Cup" has 40 results minus Wikipedia's article. STSC (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, those results are almost entirely unreliable sources or mere mentions of the subject. Of the two source you added to the article, the goal.com sources comes up with "This webpage is not available" and the newsday.com source is about the New York Cosmos winning the Lunar New Year AET Cup. None of these sources carries significant coverage of the 2015 Lunar New Year Cup as an independent subject.- MrX 02:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all "almost entirely unreliable sources" - the burden of proof is on you. From the search on "羊年賀歲盃" it also got plenty of secondary reliable sources. The goal.com link has no problem, and the Newsday link has the video of the match; they are significant coverages of the subject. STSC (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, no, the WP:BURDEN is not on me.- MrX 03:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you as to why you said "almost entirely unreliable sources". The article is verified by citations; the burden of proof is on you the nominator as to why the article should be deleted. STSC (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [1][2][3]--Antigng (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2015 (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.