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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 13:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai derbies

[edit]

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

Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shanghai derbies or Shanghai derby is notable term as per this ESPN ,this ,this this. Have added references to the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has a fair amount of coverage from a wide range of newspapers and websites from around the globe, not just China. Definitely passes WP:GNG. Article needs expansion not deletion. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely notable as per ESPN, Times of India, etc. Adityavagarwal (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst the article itself seems a little confused and definitely needs building out, there is clear sourcing present that indicates that the rivalry has received significant coverage as an event in itself rather than simply an aggregation of match reports and passing mentions. Passes WP:NRIVALRY. Fenix down (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's just a stub article at the moment, but there is potential to this article to be a lot more if worked on. Govvy (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 08:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- article has (as other users have pointed out) plenty of coverage; no other possible reasons exist for it being 'not notable'. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 01:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to concede. Rathfelder (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2017 (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.