- 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. MBisanz talk 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Asia Cup Moot
- Asia Cup Moot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is weird. There are dozens of references, yet all they are is news releases about the winner. The only part of the article that's properly sourced is the laundry list of winners, remove that and there's nothing sourced remaining! Guy ( Help!) 19:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Because they are references for the claim as to who won, not sure what you're on to. Keep.
Manderiko (
talk) 04:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- The point is that there are no sources about the subject.
Guy (
Help!) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are now, in inter alia, the Straits Times links. Chensiyuan ( talk) 14:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- The point is that there are no sources about the subject.
Guy (
Help!) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, keep. I helped create the page. It will help if you can particularise your concerns. I see a dozen different websites that are used. The wix website is unfortunate but that is the platform the Japanese organisers chose to use -- but in any event they only have a corroborative function as their contents overlap with the kokusaiho sources, and are now listed only as external links. The other surviving sources for the body text now comprise national newspapers, embassy news, online news, and university news. Chensiyuan ( talk) 04:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep perhaps as this seems convincing for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 1 February 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.
- 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. MBisanz talk 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Asia Cup Moot
- Asia Cup Moot ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is weird. There are dozens of references, yet all they are is news releases about the winner. The only part of the article that's properly sourced is the laundry list of winners, remove that and there's nothing sourced remaining! Guy ( Help!) 19:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Because they are references for the claim as to who won, not sure what you're on to. Keep.
Manderiko (
talk) 04:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- The point is that there are no sources about the subject.
Guy (
Help!) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- There are now, in inter alia, the Straits Times links. Chensiyuan ( talk) 14:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- The point is that there are no sources about the subject.
Guy (
Help!) 14:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, keep. I helped create the page. It will help if you can particularise your concerns. I see a dozen different websites that are used. The wix website is unfortunate but that is the platform the Japanese organisers chose to use -- but in any event they only have a corroborative function as their contents overlap with the kokusaiho sources, and are now listed only as external links. The other surviving sources for the body text now comprise national newspapers, embassy news, online news, and university news. Chensiyuan ( talk) 04:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 17:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep perhaps as this seems convincing for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 1 February 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.