Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games – Individual Event: Also fails WP:NOTDB .  I would also support a redirect to Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports , Malaysia , Myanmar , Singapore ,  and Thailand .  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 03:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This is essentially a list.  The article kind of has to be as it is.  How would this be fit into ( Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games ) considering no other match results are listed there?  The fact that we have any sources at all on this is a feat.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a valid keep reason.  Sportsfan 1234 ( talk ) 18:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sportsfan 1234 - The results are all sourced and we can assume there's more out there, but we also know we have limited access to it currently.  How would this fit any other way?  There's also some additiona references listed on the German page of the competition - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCdostasienspiele_1975/Badminton .  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 00:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it's common practice to create separate pages for individual and team events to remove burden on the main page.  See other SEA Games Badminton articles where singles, doubles, team all have distinct articles.  You can find more sources when searching for this subject in NewspaperSG .  This is a page related to Southeast Asian Games, where badminton is a hugely popular sport and the mass reporting was done on local newspapers, some of which are available at newspapersg.  So when you say that this is an "indiscriminate" collection of facts, you are completely wrong.  It has a high importance when looking it from the view of Badminton World, being a significant regional event.  zoglophie 06:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Blatantly fails WP:NOTDATABASE .  The above claims of "high importance" and this being a "significant regional event" are not substantiated by the sources themselves, which are all listings of results and contain no prose.  Avilich ( talk ) 01:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This page is essentially a part of main page as said already, it was separated to reduce the weight on main article.  Also, do you mean nothing knowing that top 5 players of the World at that time participated in this competition?  zoglophie 09:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's not how notability works, and split articles are still required to meet GNG.  Avilich ( talk ) 15:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Badminton at the 1975 SEAP Games is not a large enough article that this split is a valid one.  I don't agree with deleting the information, though - just the stand-alone article bit.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This looks like a perfectly valid sub-article, and the sub-article does not necessarily need to meet the general notability guideline if the main event meets it; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handball at the Goodwill Games for a similar discussion.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 14:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed on the logic, but the original article is so small no split is necessary.  SportingFlyer T · C 15:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with 1975 SEAP Games .  The "parent" article is very short, so I think the split into different events is premature.  Also, while the content of the article is currently very much on the line of WP:NOTDB I think it's plausible that more information could be found.  The article has only been around for about 6 months now.  Hopefully if the merge goes through, having that info moved out of an obscure sub-article will encourage searches for more in-depth sources.  CarringtonMist ( talk ) 11:39, 18 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus